spndnchz Posted July 3, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 3:37PM Montreal Canadiens sign UFA forward Georges Laraque (3-year, $1.5 million PER YEAR). Deal includes a partial no-trade clause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 1) There are one hundred links with regard to them offering Campbell a three year deal worth just under $6 million per year. 1.) Then it won't take you long to find one and post it, and it has to be one shows that Darcy and/or LQ confirming they offered that. The burden is on the poster who makes the claim, not the people who read it. Besides, the rest of my post addressed the fact that they may have indeed offered that. So you have no response to the second part of that item: Even if they did, why was it a bad idea to offer the 29-year-old Soupy two additional years but now they are OK with those extra years for a guy who is three years older and coming off an injury-plagued season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BetweenThePipes00 Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 I wonder how that impacts Ryan's negotiations. Miller has a little more experience and a better GAA, while Fleury has more SO and slightly better playoff numbers: Regular Season Miller - 205 GP; 112-68-1-19; 2.69 GAA, .908 SV, 7 SO Fleury - 173 GP; 76-67-2-17; 2.95 GAA; .905 SV, 11 SO Playoffs Miller - 34 GP; 20-14; 2.40, .915, 1 SO Fleury - 25 GP; 20-15, 2.30, .922, 3 SO should be Fleury - 25 GP; 15-10, 2.30, .922, 3 SO no big deal, just a typo, but could be confusing ... they are very similar but ... let's face it, Miller hold all the cards ... not only are the Sabres desperate for any good news, but he would be unrestricted ... Fleury was restricted ... He's getting at least $6 million ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 should beFleury - 25 GP; 15-10, 2.30, .922, 3 SO no big deal, just a typo, but could be confusing ... they are very similar but ... let's face it, Miller hold all the cards ... not only are the Sabres desperate for any good news, but he would be unrestricted ... Fleury was restricted ... He's getting at least $6 million ... :oops: Good catch, and I fixed it in my post. Looked at the wrong line...that's why I love copy editors, they usually keep me from making mistakes like that. And you're right, the situations aren't the same, but the numbers are, so maybe that will help us keep the cost down a little. As much as I like Miller I don't want to see him get some $7M+, long-term deal at this point in his career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BetweenThePipes00 Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 :oops: Good catch, and I fixed it in my post. Looked at the wrong line...that's why I love copy editors, they usually keep me from making mistakes like that. And you're right, the situations aren't the same, but the numbers are, so maybe that will help us keep the cost down a little. As much as I like Miller I don't want to see him get some $7M+, long-term deal at this point in his career. Well yeah, I agree $7 million would be too much ... he will probably approach Lundquist numbers but I don't think he will go beyond that ... in that regard, if this was just a down year for him it may have actually helped the Sabres, keeping his price down ... of course the flip side is, if this is the real Ryan Miller they are kinda screwed. But I think he bounces back ... hopefully AFTER he is locked up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 1.) Then it won't take you long to find one and post it, and it has to be one shows that Darcy and/or LQ confirming they offered that. The burden is on the poster who makes the claim, not the people who read it. Besides, the rest of my post addressed the fact that they may have indeed offered that. So you have no response to the second part of that item: Even if they did, why was it a bad idea to offer the 29-year-old Soupy two additional years but now they are OK with those extra years for a guy who is three years older and coming off an injury-plagued season? Don't you remember Darcy admitting the three year offer was not enough? I'm not trying to be difficult but I don't see why I should have to research link for a subject we all talked about right after the trade. Besides, I don't think they will trade for him just making the point that they were prepared to pay a one dimensional, puck moving defensemen close to $6 million per year before they were "surprised by the market." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 Well yeah, I agree $7 million would be too much ... he will probably approach Lundquist numbers but I don't think he will go beyond that ... in that regard, if this was just a down year for him it may have actually helped the Sabres, keeping his price down ... of course the flip side is, if this is the real Ryan Miller they are kinda screwed. But I think he bounces back ... hopefully AFTER he is locked up. Agreed...I feel like his bounce-back year is likely, but is also dependent on the other moves the team makes. If Lalime plays well enough that they trust him to start more than seven games (like T-bo did last year) and the defense reverts back to its 06-07 form (or better yet, the 05-06 "no giveaways and blocking a lot of shots" version) then I have no doubt Ryan will have a much better year. They took a step in the right direction by not bringing back Kalinin, now let's see what else they do to improve in their own end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 Don't you remember Darcy admitting the three year offer was not enough? I'm not trying to be difficult but I don't see why I should have to research link for a subject we all talked about right after the trade.Besides, I don't think they will trade for him just making the point that they were prepared to pay a one dimensional, puck moving defensemen close to $6 million per year before they were "surprised by the market." I don't recall ever seeing ANYTHING that confirmed we offered six million. I see a lot of articles that say things like "an offer reportedly worth" or "rumored to be a three-year deal worth XX." If you're going to pass anything off as fact, then I don't think it's asking too much that you back that up with a link. The second part of your post still doesn't address the question... my question was not whether they were prepared to pay $6M/year to a puck-moving defenseman. My point was that if the FO didn't want to give Soupy, who is three years younger than Boyle, a 5-6 year deal then why would be suddenly be considering trading for Boyle, who is 32 and has five years left on his deal at $6M per? It doesn't make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreInFla Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 I just read on another board that Naslund has signed with the rangers. 1 year for 4.5 mil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stenbaro Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 I don't recall ever seeing ANYTHING that confirmed we offered six million. I see a lot of articles that say things like "an offer reportedly worth" or "rumored to be a three-year deal worth XX." If you're going to pass anything off as fact, then I don't think it's asking too much that you back that up with a link. The second part of your post still doesn't address the question... my question was not whether they were prepared to pay $6M/year to a puck-moving defenseman. My point was that if the FO didn't want to give Soupy, who is three years younger than Boyle, a 5-6 year deal then why would be suddenly be considering trading for Boyle, who is 32 and has five years left on his deal at $6M per? It doesn't make sense. The only way that makes sense to me is if they (front Office) believe they made a mistake and feel they need that kind of defenseman on the team and he is locked up for 6 yrs..I dont think its a good idea.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two or less Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 I just read on another board that Naslund has signed with the rangers. 1 year for 4.5 mil. They over-paid, but not bad for a 1-year deal, considering he's now their top scoring threat. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreInFla Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 They over-paid, but not bad for a 1-year deal, considering he's now their top scoring threat. lol True.....hasn't been confirmed anywhere legit, but a bunch of people were posting it. I guess they assume they don't need to play defense this season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BetweenThePipes00 Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 The second part of your post still doesn't address the question... my question was not whether they were prepared to pay $6M/year to a puck-moving defenseman. My point was that if the FO didn't want to give Soupy, who is three years younger than Boyle, a 5-6 year deal then why would be suddenly be considering trading for Boyle, who is 32 and has five years left on his deal at $6M per? It doesn't make sense. The only way that makes sense to me is if they (front Office) believe they made a mistake and feel they need that kind of defenseman on the team and he is locked up for 6 yrs..I dont think its a good idea.. Another possibility, and this is PURE speculation, is that they considered taking on Boyle's deal because they could unload a contract or two (Max, Kotalik, Spacek, whatever) and/or get another player they like (Halpern?) in the deal ... In other words, I agree, if you are going to pay Boyle why not pay Campbell ... so the only reason has to be because they would get something else in the deal, either a player or relief from some of their own dead weight or both. When you think about it, it would make sense for Tampa to take on some guys in the last year of their deals in exchange for Boyle ... it gives them money to spend next offseason ... in the NBA they do deals like this for expiring contracts all the time. Basically, to Tampa, they may not be as good as Boyle this season but the value of Max/Connolly/Kotalik/Spacek is in the fact they they come off the cap next season and they can go get the guy they REALLY want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreInFla Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 Another possibility, and this is PURE speculation, is that they considered taking on Boyle's deal because they could unload a contract or two (Max, Kotalik, Spacek, whatever) and/or get another player they like (Halpern?) in the deal ... In other words, I agree, if you are going to pay Boyle why not pay Campbell ... so the only reason has to be because they would get something else in the deal, either a player or relief from some of their own dead weight or both. When you think about it, it would make sense for Tampa to take on some guys in the last year of their deals in exchange for Boyle ... it gives them money to spend next offseason ... in the NBA they do deals like this for expiring contracts all the time. Basically, to Tampa, they may not be as good as Boyle this season but the value of Max/Connolly/Kotalik/Spacek is in the fact they they come off the cap next season and they can go get the guy they REALLY want. Why unload Spacek? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 The only way that makes sense to me is if they (front Office) believe they made a mistake and feel they need that kind of defenseman on the team and he is locked up for 6 yrs..I dont think its a good idea.. I don't disagree that it could be a sign that they realize they screwed up with Campbell. But if this is their choice then I think it's a mistake...he's 32, he's had a couple surgeries on his left wrist and played just 36 games last year. I just don't see how that's a good move to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stenbaro Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 Another possibility, and this is PURE speculation, is that they considered taking on Boyle's deal because they could unload a contract or two (Max, Kotalik, Spacek, whatever) and/or get another player they like (Halpern?) in the deal ... In other words, I agree, if you are going to pay Boyle why not pay Campbell ... so the only reason has to be because they would get something else in the deal, either a player or relief from some of their own dead weight or both. When you think about it, it would make sense for Tampa to take on some guys in the last year of their deals in exchange for Boyle ... it gives them money to spend next offseason ... in the NBA they do deals like this for expiring contracts all the time. Basically, to Tampa, they may not be as good as Boyle this season but the value of Max/Connolly/Kotalik/Spacek is in the fact they they come off the cap next season and they can go get the guy they REALLY want. I agree... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 Another possibility, and this is PURE speculation, is that they considered taking on Boyle's deal because they could unload a contract or two (Max, Kotalik, Spacek, whatever) and/or get another player they like (Halpern?) in the deal ...In other words, I agree, if you are going to pay Boyle why not pay Campbell ... so the only reason has to be because they would get something else in the deal, either a player or relief from some of their own dead weight or both. When you think about it, it would make sense for Tampa to take on some guys in the last year of their deals in exchange for Boyle ... it gives them money to spend next offseason ... in the NBA they do deals like this for expiring contracts all the time. Basically, to Tampa, they may not be as good as Boyle this season but the value of Max/Connolly/Kotalik/Spacek is in the fact they they come off the cap next season and they can go get the guy they REALLY want. I'd love to see Halpern in Buffalo, so if it means we have to take on Boyle to do so then we better make sure we clear some cap space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stenbaro Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 I don't disagree that it could be a sign that they realize they screwed up with Campbell. But if this is their choice then I think it's a mistake...he's 32, he's had a couple surgeries on his left wrist and played just 36 games last year. I just don't see how that's a good move to make. I gotta believe there are better options than Boyle out there..I remember that old geezer from MSG saying that if the Sabres were to trade cAmpbell that Boyle could be a cheap alternative..6 mill isnt cheap enough for him.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BetweenThePipes00 Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 Why unload Spacek? I wasn't suggesting they unload Spacek, just saying he has the kind of deal that works in this scenario because he is in the last year of his deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreInFla Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 I wasn't suggesting they unload Spacek, just saying he has the kind of deal that works in this scenario because he is in the last year of his deal. Got ya.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BetweenThePipes00 Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 I'd love to see Halpern in Buffalo, so if it means we have to take on Boyle to do so then we better make sure we clear some cap space. Me too, the whole idea is probably a pipe dream built around the fact Halpern is a good fit ... but I think the logic is sound, because like you said there needs to be a good reason to take on Boyle other than Boyle himself ... and hey, Boyle would probably be productive for a couple years also ... there woudl have to be more to the deal though ... Max is obvious, but what else would it take to get both those guys? maybe someone we don't want to part with ... and by we I mean me .... since it is my fantasy world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 I don't recall ever seeing ANYTHING that confirmed we offered six million. I see a lot of articles that say things like "an offer reportedly worth" or "rumored to be a three-year deal worth XX." If you're going to pass anything off as fact, then I don't think it's asking too much that you back that up with a link. The second part of your post still doesn't address the question... my question was not whether they were prepared to pay $6M/year to a puck-moving defenseman. My point was that if the FO didn't want to give Soupy, who is three years younger than Boyle, a 5-6 year deal then why would be suddenly be considering trading for Boyle, who is 32 and has five years left on his deal at $6M per? It doesn't make sense. a) Darcy, I believe, even talked about the three year deal at the press conference. Also, I think I said the offer was for almost $6 million ( I think it was $5.75) As for a link, everytime I provide a link, its never good enough. I'm not going to spend an hour listening to GR's audio vault to prove a point. Campbell talked about the three year deal, his agent, Darcy.... If you can show me how to google press conferences or audio, I will provide the link. b) Does it make any less sense then waiting to accept Drury's $5.3 million then trying to offer him over $7 million or turning Campbell down when he wanted $5 million only to offer him $5.75 million? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 Another possibility, and this is PURE speculation, is that they considered taking on Boyle's deal because they could unload a contract or two (Max, Kotalik, Spacek, whatever) and/or get another player they like (Halpern?) in the deal ... In other words, I agree, if you are going to pay Boyle why not pay Campbell ... so the only reason has to be because they would get something else in the deal, either a player or relief from some of their own dead weight or both. When you think about it, it would make sense for Tampa to take on some guys in the last year of their deals in exchange for Boyle ... it gives them money to spend next offseason ... in the NBA they do deals like this for expiring contracts all the time. Basically, to Tampa, they may not be as good as Boyle this season but the value of Max/Connolly/Kotalik/Spacek is in the fact they they come off the cap next season and they can go get the guy they REALLY want. Pipes, you went from expecting a deal at the draft, to the free agent period and now to next year? I still expect some significant changes this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 I don't recall ever seeing ANYTHING that confirmed we offered six million. I see a lot of articles that say things like "an offer reportedly worth" or "rumored to be a three-year deal worth XX." If you're going to pass anything off as fact, then I don't think it's asking too much that you back that up with a link. The second part of your post still doesn't address the question... my question was not whether they were prepared to pay $6M/year to a puck-moving defenseman. My point was that if the FO didn't want to give Soupy, who is three years younger than Boyle, a 5-6 year deal then why would be suddenly be considering trading for Boyle, who is 32 and has five years left on his deal at $6M per? It doesn't make sense. I hope Larry Quinn's voice works. I don't like the implication that I entered facts not in evidence. http://wgr.everyzing.com/viewMedia.jsp?res...mp;seek=132.509 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 Did we post that San Jose signed Rob Blake to 1 year $5 million? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.