Weave Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 I'm surprised no one has made a suggestion of going after Turris thinking about it. Thought about it. He's a 25pt guy though and he's asking for Stafford money. And his GM has already said he's not getting traded. Between his lack of production and his ridiculous holdout he's looking a bit like a problem child in my eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 Thought about it. He's a 25pt guy though and he's asking for Stafford money. And his GM has already said he's not getting traded. Between his lack of production and his ridiculous holdout he's looking a bit like a problem child in my eyes. It's funny. The report on him coming out of the draft and then later out of Wisconsin was that he needed to mature physically. I guess they missed the second part of that maturity issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 This is still a playoff team, but i don't think that they improved that much in the offseason, even with the spending spree. Just because you spent the money, doesn't mean it was spent well. I like the Regher trade,I think it was the better move made this offseason by the Sabres. The Erhoff move I think was grossly overpaying for a guy just for him to consider coming here. I don't think he is worth half the salary they gave him and there is a reason why the Canucks and their fans didn't mind letting him go. He just isn't worth the money he wanted. He can be a good player, but for what they ended up paying him, he should be a much better player. As for Leino, this has to have been the worst deal of the offseason, and its even more of an overpayment then the Erhoff deal. Leino is a decent player, but again, way too much money spent on a project guy with potential who has only shown fashes of being a good player. my problem with the offseason moves weren't the players that were brought in, it has more to do with the price that was paid for them. And yeah, you can all start with the "Who cares, its not your money that the Sabres spent to get them", but throwing around more money then you should on players hurts the team in a salary cap league. These deals have handcuffed the team (just as much as the shackles that were apparently in place on Darcy by the previous ownership) and has the team really gotten that much better this offseason compared to the money spent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 Welcome to free agency. If you want to get one of the higher end players, that's exactly what you have to do to sign them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 Put it this way. Don Luce probably hasn't been able to walk to the chalkboard since this trade went down. Well, even if Schenn has viagra qualities, Richards is really good, plays with a ton of heart and was their captain. And it also sounds very possible that ownership ordered Luce to trade him. The hockey gods, as we've seen, tend to frown on ownership ordering the GM to let a blood-and-guts captain walk out the door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 This is still a playoff team, but i don't think that they improved that much in the offseason, even with the spending spree. Just because you spent the money, doesn't mean it was spent well. I like the Regher trade,I think it was the better move made this offseason by the Sabres. The Erhoff move I think was grossly overpaying for a guy just for him to consider coming here. I don't think he is worth half the salary they gave him and there is a reason why the Canucks and their fans didn't mind letting him go. He just isn't worth the money he wanted. He can be a good player, but for what they ended up paying him, he should be a much better player. As for Leino, this has to have been the worst deal of the offseason, and its even more of an overpayment then the Erhoff deal. Leino is a decent player, but again, way too much money spent on a project guy with potential who has only shown fashes of being a good player. my problem with the offseason moves weren't the players that were brought in, it has more to do with the price that was paid for them. And yeah, you can all start with the "Who cares, its not your money that the Sabres spent to get them", but throwing around more money then you should on players hurts the team in a salary cap league. These deals have handcuffed the team (just as much as the shackles that were apparently in place on Darcy by the previous ownership) and has the team really gotten that much better this offseason compared to the money spent? 1) I don't have a problem with Ehrhoff making the same money as Regehr, Roy, and Stafford. It think it's a good deal, actually. 2) Leino's contract CANNOT shackle this team. He does not have an NMC and therefore if it becomes necessary, he can play in Rochester with no cap impact. So it is a no risk project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 Well, even if Schenn has viagra qualities, Richards is really good, plays with a ton of heart and was their captain. And it also sounds very possible that ownership ordered Luce to trade him. The hockey gods, as we've seen, tend to frown on ownership ordering the GM to let a blood-and-guts captain walk out the door. What Philly did was they set their timeline back a little bit. The Kings moved theirs up as they need to win now. But Philly is loaded with young talented prospects. It was a pretty bold move moving Carter and Richards. But it a weird way it does make sense as the Center position in Philly doesn't need to cover as much ice as Richards can cover. So Richards was more valuable to the Kings than he was to Philly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 2) Leino's contract CANNOT shackle this team. He does not have an NMC and therefore if it becomes necessary, he can play in Rochester with no cap impact. So it is a no risk project. I can see them burying Kotalik's contract for 1 year, but I would be shocked if Pegula all of a sudden decides it is okay to bury any and all of Darcy's mistakes in Rochester, especially contracts that are on the books for 6 years!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 I can see them burying Kotalik's contract for 1 year, but I would be shocked if Pegula all of a sudden decides it is okay to bury any and all of Darcy's mistakes in Rochester, especially contracts that are on the books for 6 years!! I'm not saying he wouldn't bury Darcy with him. Just saying, we have been shown nothing to believe that we can't take risks on players. Obviously Mr. Regier needs to start hitting if he wants to keep playing, but If Leino is hurting the team. Terry will take care of it. All that said, I don't think you could make a decision like that until the 2013 Trade Deadline. If he's still on 10g 20pt pace and we can bring in an important piece, but need to free up $4.5M in space, you can bet your ass Blue Cross Arena will be more Finnish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RazielSabre Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 I can see them burying Kotalik's contract for 1 year, but I would be shocked if Pegula all of a sudden decides it is okay to bury any and all of Darcy's mistakes in Rochester, especially contracts that are on the books for 6 years!! More likely to buy him out. But to be honest We're talking about the same GM who got Briere for Gratton (I think that was the deal, tell me if I'm wrong). I'm sure we can get rid of Leino if needs be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 More likely to buy him out. But to be honest We're talking about the same GM who got Briere for Gratton (I think that was the deal, tell me if I'm wrong). I'm sure we can get rid of Leino if needs be. You take a hit against the cap when buying out players. Not sure if that would be a good option for larger contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 More likely to buy him out. But to be honest We're talking about the same GM who got Briere for Gratton (I think that was the deal, tell me if I'm wrong). I'm sure we can get rid of Leino if needs be. You take a hit against the cap when buying out players. Not sure if that would be a good option for larger contracts. Definitely not a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 More likely to buy him out. But to be honest We're talking about the same GM who got Briere for Gratton (I think that was the deal, tell me if I'm wrong). I'm sure we can get rid of Leino if needs be. You take a hit against the cap when buying out players. Not sure if that would be a good option for larger contracts. Definitely not a good idea. For this reason I expect there to be a third way out of a contract when the CBA is renegotiated in the off season. So sort of player initiated club accepted voidance of the contract. For guys like Morrison, Ales, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 For this reason I expect there to be a third way out of a contract when the CBA is renegotiated in the off season. So sort of player initiated club accepted voidance of the contract. For guys like Morrison, Ales, etc. Why would a player want to void a contract that pays him $3 million? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 Why would a player want to void a contract that pays him $3 million? And they already have that option. It's called "not reporting". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 For this reason I expect there to be a third way out of a contract when the CBA is renegotiated in the off season. So sort of player initiated club accepted voidance of the contract. For guys like Morrison, Ales, etc. If the NHL owners wanted to take a major step forward in terms of the CBA, they would insist on no more guaranteed contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 Really? As in a Hart trophy-type-guy? So Philly's got the next Ovechkin? That's just great. Do you still think Pittsburgh is going to trade Staal? Most likely not. Staal is a very good player. Maybe when they have to renew his contract he might go away but that depends on their feelings about Crosby and Malkin. So if you mean this year, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
korab rules Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 Why would a player want to void a contract that pays him $3 million? And they already have that option. It's called "not reporting". Because it would allow the player to market their services to another organization that might actually consider allowing them to play in the NHL, like a Wade Redden. Depending on their level of pride and belief in their game, this might be an attractive option for some. Small market teams will hate this idea, as it will allow big money teams who pay too much for players to escape the consequences of their actions. Once upon a time, I would have allied with the small market teams, but now I don't give a $hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 If the NHL owners wanted to take a major step forward in terms of the CBA, they would insist on no more guaranteed contracts. That would be one hell of an uphill battle for them. The only way they could ever get something along those lines would be some sort of maximum length for a contract (which I wouldn't be surprised to see happen). It's still guaranteed, but then the contracts get reeled in quite a bit. Still, they're going to have to give up a major concession to the PA to get this. Quite honestly, I wouldn't expect much change at all in their next CBA. Things are relatively good right now and there's no way they flirt with another stoppage. It would be suicide. People may say stuff about Donald Fehr, but he wants a job just as much as anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 That would be one hell of an uphill battle for them. The only way they could ever get something along those lines would be some sort of maximum length for a contract (which I wouldn't be surprised to see happen). It's still guaranteed, but then the contracts get reeled in quite a bit. Still, they're going to have to give up a major concession to the PA to get this. Quite honestly, I wouldn't expect much change at all in their next CBA. Things are relatively good right now and there's no way they flirt with another stoppage. It would be suicide. People may say stuff about Donald Fehr, but he wants a job just as much as anyone else. Is the NHL the only one of the 4 major sports that provides for 100% guaranteed contracts(assuming no buyout)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 Is the NHL the only one of the 4 major sports that provides for 100% guaranteed contracts(assuming no buyout)? I want to say baseball contracts are, but I really don't know much about the other sports. It always seems like they're talking about teams being stuck with the players' contracts there. edit: Oh, and what's the 4th sport? :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 I want to say baseball contracts are, but I really don't know much about the other sports. It always seems like they're talking about teams being stuck with the players' contracts there. edit: Oh, and what's the 4th sport? :D It makes you wonder how the filthy rich NFL owners have a CBA with contracts that are not 100% guaranteed, but not the NHL where 1/3 or more of the teams are probably losing money. Go figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frissonic Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 More likely to buy him out. But to be honest We're talking about the same GM who got Briere for Gratton (I think that was the deal, tell me if I'm wrong). I'm sure we can get rid of Leino if needs be. remind me ... specifically *why* are we talking about getting rid of leino? because he's under-performed in the first 10 games of an 82-game schedule? using that line of logic, we could also get rid of half the team. going back to last season, using this same concept, we wouldn't have a team at all based on how they performed in october and november 2010. give the kid some time. he'll be fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 With a short camp and too many NHL games and too few full practice days - making it all click is a work in progress. So I agree with most of what you say Chris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMatrix31 Posted November 1, 2011 Report Share Posted November 1, 2011 If the NHL owners wanted to take a major step forward in terms of the CBA, they would insist on no more guaranteed contracts. I think every sport should have non-guaranteed deals. Too many people (see: Chris Johnson, RB) sign fat contracts then do absolutely nothing after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.