tom webster Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 I've looked at the numbers a lot and let's just say that they could not have signed Briere and Drury, even at discounted prices ($5 Million/yr) and still sign Vanek and Roy to the the contracts that they got without finding a way to unload some other over-priced contracts (Max, Timmy, Lydman, Tallinder, Kalinin, Kotalik or, to a lesser extent, Spacek). I can show you the numbers if you would like. If they managed to find takers (trade for picks/prospects) for some of those, they might have been able to do it, but that's a big if. If they'd found a way to lock Vanek up for much less and/or signed Roy to a lower hit contract (likely much shorter), then they might have squeezed them in, but only if they got the discounted prices on Danny/Chris. Again, though, those are more big ifs and you risk losing Vanek and/or don't lock up Roy, both bad. Note: this also assumes that they didn't even think about signing Teppo again and, instead, brought up Sekera. Also, even in these best case scenerios, they are spending about $5 Million more than they currently are. Then, look at next season. It would have made the Campbell decision much easier. The only two players up for contracts with any serious cap hits (above $750k) were Kalinin and Hecht. Kalinin could go, but is that enough to sign Campbell for next year? Hmmm ... $1.5 Million up to $5 Million is still more than Kalinin's $2.0 million and you still have to pay for another defender even if it's a current AHL guy. Do let Hecht go, too? I wouldn't. Face it, we have too many players with inflated contracts that you can't just wish away. The guys that they brought in to fill those spot were both under a Million. In your best case scenario, if they had $5 left that would have been enough to be under this cap. And next year, the cap is expected to be $56 million so they could have signed Campbell and Hecht would have been dependat on buying out or getting rid of the fab 3. So yes They could have done it. Whether it would have been advisable is open to debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjag Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 That's right. I think only Jagr's contract is grandfathered in. Right. However, there is a move-afoot to bring back some of this. The players assoc guy was on the Boston broadcast the other day stating the players favor salary offset/compensation from one team to another to entice more trades. Of course, why wouldn't they. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 Right. However, there is a move-afoot to bring back some of this. The players assoc guy was on the Boston broadcast the other day stating the players favor salary offset/compensation from one team to another to entice more trades. Of course, why wouldn't they. Anything that turns the cap into a soft ceiling would be in their best interest. I can't see the owners going for that though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 Anything that turns the cap into a soft ceiling would be in their best interest. I can't see the owners going for that though. I would hope that some of the sham deals in the NBA would convince everyone of the horrors of a soft cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 I would hope that some of the sham deals in the NBA would convince everyone of the horrors of a soft cap. There has to be some middle ground between the hard cap and the NBA's "cap in name only" version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted March 18, 2008 Report Share Posted March 18, 2008 In your best case scenario, if they had $5 left that would have been enough to be under this cap. And next year, the cap is expected to be $56 million so they could have signed Campbell and Hecht would have been dependat on buying out or getting rid of the fab 3. So yes They could have done it. Whether it would have been advisable is open to debate. My "best case" was based on some very low figures with Briere and Drury at discounted prices, as well as Roy and Vanek locked up at much lower cap hits. Even if that happened, they would have been spending almost $5 Million more than they did this year, which would have put them just under the cap (we are only $5.4 Million under it now). However, 1) I don't think we would have gotten either, much less both of them at those prices (Danny and Chris at $5/yr each). 2) For the money required, Roy probably would only have signed for only a few years, which isn't nearly as good as having him for six. 3) There's no guarentee that Vanek would have signed before the deadline at a much lower figure (didn't his agent say he wouldn't?) and it would have been a big risk if he didn't (for example, they would have had to let him go given Edmonton's offer sheet.) 4) It would still leave only a half Million cap space, which is very dangerous. So, assuming lots of very unlikely ifs happened, then they could have put themselve is a terrible possition. All-in-all, I would say it wasn't going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster Posted March 18, 2008 Report Share Posted March 18, 2008 My "best case" was based on some very low figures with Briere and Drury at discounted prices, as well as Roy and Vanek locked up at much lower cap hits. Even if that happened, they would have been spending almost $5 Million more than they did this year, which would have put them just under the cap (we are only $5.4 Million under it now). However, 1) I don't think we would have gotten either, much less both of them at those prices (Danny and Chris at $5/yr each). 2) For the money required, Roy probably would only have signed for only a few years, which isn't nearly as good as having him for six. 3) There's no guarentee that Vanek would have signed before the deadline at a much lower figure (didn't his agent say he wouldn't?) and it would have been a big risk if he didn't (for example, they would have had to let him go given Edmonton's offer sheet.) 4) It would still leave only a half Million cap space, which is very dangerous. So, assuming lots of very unlikely ifs happened, then they could have put themselve is a terrible possition. All-in-all, I would say it wasn't going to happen. Saying it wouldn't happen and saying it couldn't happen are two entirely different things. I thinks its the constant rationalization were people say ...see, they knew what they were doing that gets people like myself and stenbaro aggravated. I, for one, have moved on and wouldn't revist the issue if people would stop acting like they did nothing wrong and assuming that they knew what theywere doing, are doing and are going to do in the future. One of my fears is the end of year new conference as Larry tells us how smart he is and how evertything is going in the right direction and they do nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stenbaro Posted March 18, 2008 Report Share Posted March 18, 2008 Saying it wouldn't happen and saying it couldn't happen are two entirely different things. I thinks its the constant rationalization were people say ...see, they knew what they were doing that gets people like myself and stenbaro aggravated. I, for one, have moved on and wouldn't revist the issue if people would stop acting like they did nothing wrong and assuming that they knew what theywere doing, are doing and are going to do in the future.One of my fears is the end of year new conference as Larry tells us how smart he is and how evertything is going in the right direction and they do nothing. I agree..To think they planned that is absurd..They fudged up and they are still fudging up this roster...How many more players who have played well here are gonna have to leave before folks realize its a problem not a plan.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted March 18, 2008 Report Share Posted March 18, 2008 Saying it wouldn't happen and saying it couldn't happen are two entirely different things. I thinks its the constant rationalization were people say ...see, they knew what they were doing that gets people like myself and stenbaro aggravated. I, for one, have moved on and wouldn't revisit the issue if people would stop acting like they did nothing wrong and assuming that they knew what they were doing, are doing and are going to do in the future. One of my fears is the end of year new conference as Larry tells us how smart he is and how everything is going in the right direction and they do nothing. But it's just as frustrating when people say they really messed up by not signing them all, because that implies it definitely could have happened (not to mention should have happened), which is just as incorrect. Nobody here knows what discussions did or did not take place. Maybe they did explore each option and determined that they couldn't happen. They offered Drury the same contract as the Rangers, which prices my best case right out. Who knows what numbers they were talking with Vanek when his agent said they were going to test the FA market. They dropped Briere and, guess what, I agree with that even if they could still have gotten him for 5 yrs, $25 Million during the season (which I still doubt). It does seem like they fiddle-farted around a bit with Drury's initial contract, but they certainly were trying to sign him. They didn't sign Campbell, which again I would agree with even for the magical 5 yr, $25 Million. Did they screw some things up? Yes, they didn't bring in the missing parts. However, to do this, the team would need a way out of some of their contracts, which takes willing trade partners. If anything, it was previous signings that were the real problem. So, in short, maybe it could have happened -- you can't say for certain that it could have and I can't for certain that it couldn't have (just that it would have been very, very unlikely) -- and either way, it doesn't mean it would have been the right move. This conversation could back and forth forever, but as with most things, the truth probably lies in the middle. They have messed some things up, but they also have made some correct decisions that just appear to be mistakes. The are not gods, nor are they complete incompetents. Edit: I forgot to say that I do appreciate these discussions as it clearly means we are all passionate fans, just with different points of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Enabler Posted March 18, 2008 Report Share Posted March 18, 2008 Personally I feel that Behr paint is the best paint that you can buy! It goes on smoothly, and covers well. Every room in my home was painted with Behr paints. Benjamin Moore by far. never used Behr. are you talking eggshell Behr? color therapy is underrated. this thread needs a hi-jack. bad! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stenbaro Posted March 18, 2008 Report Share Posted March 18, 2008 Benjamin Moore by far. never used Behr. are you talking eggshell Behr? color therapy is underrated. this thread needs a hi-jack. bad! Do you how rude that is?..If you dont like the conversation dont participate...If you dont like the station change the chanel.When 2 or 3 o4 people are involved in a discussion they want to talk about then let them...If one of my kids did that the belt would be out..LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Enabler Posted March 18, 2008 Report Share Posted March 18, 2008 Do you how rude that is?..If you dont like the conversation dont participate...If you dont like the station change the chanel.When 2 or 3 o4 people are involved in a discussion they want to talk about then let them...If one of my kids did that the belt would be out..LOL ouch! I'd rather have the belt than the banana, this topic is a broken record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stenbaro Posted March 18, 2008 Report Share Posted March 18, 2008 ouch! I'd rather have the belt than the banana, this topic is a broken record. Simple answer for you then..Dont look at it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.