Assquatch Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 25% chance of the top pick isnt gonna fly. Check out the names in my signature and tell me losing the lottery is the end of the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patty16 Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 "Manipulating the roster for draft positioning." Sounds like a tank to me. I don't think that tanking means you're not competitive. The opposite actually. It means that he doesn't just want to win. He wants to WIN. No more 6-8 seeds and out. He wants to accumulate the best possible talent and knows that happens in the draft. Especially next year. It's also not really a choice. The roster is already set up for failure. Yes, i meant it more as they arent going sit tight and do nothing to improve the roster in the short term. Also they aren't going to field a team of scrubs to manipulate draft spots. I just don't see PLF setting up the roster to be the worst in the league next year. And I agree it's pretty bad this year. Check out the names in my signature and tell me losing the lottery is the end of the world. No one, including me, has said you can't or won't get a quality player at that position. I think some people are delusional if they think the plan is to field an AHL team to tank for next years draft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assquatch Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 No one, including me, has said you can't or won't get a quality player at that position. I think some people are delusional if they think the plan is to field an AHL team to tank for next years draft. Yep sorry for putting words in your mouth. I was refuting the implication (that you apparently weren't making) that it's only a 25% chance for a positive outcome that some seem to exude. It wouldn't be the first time a team manipulated their roster for better draft position when a generational talent is coming available (Lemieux, Crosby). There's the organization's near admission it is/was/will be the plan (timeframe not stated, although they did reference that the next TWO drafts would be the building blocks). Add in Craig Patrick who drafted the last prospect touted this highly and saw him turn the Pens around. I don't have to look much further than these facts as well as analyze recent trades, roster moves, and player selections on game day and it's not too far a leap to imagine it's not beneath them to tank next year too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 (edited) Yes, i meant it more as they arent going sit tight and do nothing to improve the roster in the short term. Also they aren't going to field a team of scrubs to manipulate draft spots. I just don't see PLF setting up the roster to be the worst in the league next year. And I agree it's pretty bad this year. There's only so much they can do. When it's stripped of the upcoming UFAs it'll be a roster with just about no talent that not many guys are going to want to come play for. Guys like McDavid and Eichel turn franchises around with both their ability to play and their ability to attract other players to their city. I think PLF and GMTM both know that, and might take a shot. Tanking has been used as a strategy multiple times in the past, and it has worked. Obviously Edmonton is one good example of when it doesn't, but I don't really think they ever tanked because there were no real world-class talents available to them anyways. We already have an elite crop of defensive prospects... We just need one or two elite forwards to add to our current group. Then use the "excess" young assets/picks to build your roster. And supplement it with free agents in 2015. Edited February 3, 2014 by Tankalicious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTS Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 But is this really different from any other rebuilding strategy? Big trades and UFA signings don't always work out either, for very similar reasons that "tanking" may not work out. You can trade away a future star for a current very good to great player who suddenly hits a significant decline. A UFA may never earn his money, or may suffer the same catastrophic injury you worry about with players at the top of the draft. We could make a bunch of moves that mortgage the future for a playoff spot now and respectable hockey without ever having a realistic shot at a Cup, or we could put ourselves in cap hell by overpaying a half dozen UFAs on long term deals which give us flexibility problems several years down the road...again, without ever truly competing for a Cup. Perhaps it's a nuance but I think the scenarios you outline are things that have immediate impact. When you trade a player you impact your roster immediately. Whereas if you are manipulating your roster to be bad enough to not win now but be good enough to be able to win a year or two from now with the hopes that said generational player will be on your roster in an upcoming draft is a bit more difficult. I'm not sure it's much different except that it deals with real assets as opposed to theoretical assets. No one is using the phrase generational talent for anyone other than McDavid. So if, by chance, he catches and edge and smacks the boards and busts up his knee pretty good it could be he is sliding down the board and now a team is left with just a top draft pick. Not necessarily bad, but not generational. I'm sure the Penguins weren't feeling as good about themselves when Crosby was battling concussion issues. Imagine if that had happened before he was drafted. It would have been a real stretch for Pittsburgh to use the #1 pick on him if they weren't sure if he could play again, let alone at the same level he had been. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Yep sorry for putting words in your mouth. I was refuting the implication (that you apparently weren't making) that it's only a 25% chance for a positive outcome that some seem to exude. It wouldn't be the first time a team manipulated their roster for better draft position when a generational talent is coming available (Lemieux, Crosby). There's the organization's near admission it is/was/will be the plan (timeframe not stated, although they did reference that the next TWO drafts would be the building blocks). Add in Craig Patrick who drafted the last prospect touted this highly and saw him turn the Pens around. I don't have to look much further than these facts as well as analyze recent trades, roster moves, and player selections on game day and it's not too far a leap to imagine it's not beneath them to tank next year too. The Pens didn't do any manipulating of their roster to "Tank" in order to get Crosby. Crosby was drafted the year of the Lockout, when the league created a draft lottery that included all of the teams and weighted the lottery slightly to the struggling teams IIRC (Depending on their picks in previous seasons). The draft before the Lockout was where they picked second (behind Washington in the Ovy sweepstakes) and took Malkin at #2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patty16 Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 The Pens didn't do any manipulating of their roster to "Tank" in order to get Crosby. Crosby was drafted the year of the Lockout, when the league created a draft lottery that included all of the teams and weighted the lottery slightly to the struggling teams IIRC (Depending on their picks in previous seasons). The draft before the Lockout was where they picked second (behind Washington in the Ovy sweepstakes) and took Malkin at #2. +1 Yep sorry for putting words in your mouth. I was refuting the implication (that you apparently weren't making) that it's only a 25% chance for a positive outcome that some seem to exude. It wouldn't be the first time a team manipulated their roster for better draft position when a generational talent is coming available (Lemieux, Crosby). There's the organization's near admission it is/was/will be the plan (timeframe not stated, although they did reference that the next TWO drafts would be the building blocks). Add in Craig Patrick who drafted the last prospect touted this highly and saw him turn the Pens around. I don't have to look much further than these facts as well as analyze recent trades, roster moves, and player selections on game day and it's not too far a leap to imagine it's not beneath them to tank next year too. All fair points. The roster is so horrible, and the fixes not so apparent that it's easy to see them being awful next year whether they try to or not. I still think for a team that's trying to build a winning culture, that having a transparent "tank" season would contradict that concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Retweeted by Mike Schopp Dale Lamontagne @Dale_Lamontagne 18m Larry Brooks of the NY Post: "The Sabres are apparently willing to meet Ryan Callahan's asking price of a 7-year deal, worth at least $42M." Not sure if there is any credibility to this tweet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assquatch Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Retweeted by Mike Schopp Dale Lamontagne @Dale_Lamontagne 18m Larry Brooks of the NY Post: "The Sabres are apparently willing to meet Ryan Callahan's asking price of a 7-year deal, worth at least $42M." Not sure if there is any credibility to this tweet. The whole article is available in 26CornerBlitz's post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Apparently I missed it. :unsure: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huckleberry Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 (edited) Don't think that should be a surprise to any of us, but i wouldn't call it a reversed drury at all, Callahan has much more left in the "tank". But its also the only move sabres should make, you want to be a local boy, fine we'll pay you but don't expect anything for the next two years and it will be front loaded somewhat. Edit: don't expect anything except us going for top 3 draft pick in 2015 and patrick kane ... If he bleeds sabres blood , he'll accept it and be a leader to take us to the ultimate price, really should be that simple. Edited February 3, 2014 by Heimdall Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 The Pens didn't do any manipulating of their roster to "Tank" in order to get Crosby. Crosby was drafted the year of the Lockout, when the league created a draft lottery that included all of the teams and weighted the lottery slightly to the struggling teams IIRC (Depending on their picks in previous seasons). The draft before the Lockout was where they picked second (behind Washington in the Ovy sweepstakes) and took Malkin at #2. Where did they draft Fleury and Malkin? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Buffalo Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Dreger has this posted on TSN's website: Caljahan "He wants a lot of money. It's been widely reported that Callahan is looking for a seven-year term around $6 million per year. That is not accurate. I'm told that it is more than $6.5 million but less than $7 million per year on a seven-year term. Whether it's $6 million per year or, as we know now, closer to $7 million, that's a lot of money; too much for the Rangers. There's not a lot of wiggle room in this negotiation and that's why Glen Sather is considering and working towards moving his captain." To read more click on the above link. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Where did they draft Fleury and Malkin? Whats your point?As I said in what you quoted right at the end, Malkin was picked #2 the year before Crosby when Ovi went #1. Fleury was prior to that also taken at #1 I was responding to the comment about Pittsburgh manipulating their roster to be in a position to get a once in a generational talent (Crosby) which is false, manipulating their roster had nothing to do with getting Crosby, and it could have slightly hurt their chances because Crosby was drafted in the draft right after the lockout, where all teams had a chance at the #1 pick, and it was weighted based on previous years playoff appearances and if you have picked #1 overall before (IIRC, you were given less of a chance at #1 if you drafted 1st overall within the previous few seasons) In other words, the Pens couldn't 'Tank' to get the #1 pick, that year, and had to get lucky and win a lottery to get Crosby. Dreger has this posted on TSN's website: Caljahan "He wants a lot of money. It's been widely reported that Callahan is looking for a seven-year term around $6 million per year. That is not accurate. I'm told that it is more than $6.5 million but less than $7 million per year on a seven-year term. Whether it's $6 million per year or, as we know now, closer to $7 million, that's a lot of money; too much for the Rangers. There's not a lot of wiggle room in this negotiation and that's why Glen Sather is considering and working towards moving his captain." To read more click on the above link. It sounds like the agents for some of the Rangers players are upset because the Rangers have shown willingness to grossly overpay to bring in other teams FAs, but don't want to give out big deals to keep their own 'Family' (I think this was said by Girardis agent when discussing the possibility of him getting a deal done) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Dreger has this posted on TSN's website: Caljahan "He wants a lot of money. It's been widely reported that Callahan is looking for a seven-year term around $6 million per year. That is not accurate. I'm told that it is more than $6.5 million but less than $7 million per year on a seven-year term. Whether it's $6 million per year or, as we know now, closer to $7 million, that's a lot of money; too much for the Rangers. There's not a lot of wiggle room in this negotiation and that's why Glen Sather is considering and working towards moving his captain." To read more click on the above link. Interesting. So Callahan is looking for $45MM - $48MM this summer? I wouldn't be surprised if he gets it. It's a skinny UFA crop this summer and the cap is rising. I think the Sabres will make him a fat offer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 I think he waits, gets traded and refuses to sign anywhere until the summer. I also think the Sabres offer him more money than anyone else does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 I think he waits, gets traded and refuses to sign anywhere until the summer. I also think the Sabres offer him more money than anyone else does. I don't think he gets traded unless the team he is going to signs him long termThats why the Rangers are letting teams speak to his agent to work out a deal now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FolignosJock Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 I don't think he gets traded unless the team he is going to signs him long term Thats why the Rangers are letting teams speak to his agent to work out a deal now I would give them larsson and a 2nd if he is going to agree to the deal before being traded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 I would give them larsson and a 2nd if he is going to agree to the deal before being traded. But would the Rangers even consider that for their captain? Sure everyone knows he is 95% likely not to re-sign in NY, but with them giving the chance to talk to him and work out a deal with a new team, the Rangers will probably want more for him because they gave teams that chance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FolignosJock Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 But would the Rangers even consider that for their captain? Sure everyone knows he is 95% likely not to re-sign in NY, but with them giving the chance to talk to him and work out a deal with a new team, the Rangers will probably want more for him because they gave teams that chance Exactly but i wouldnt give up much because I think we are getting him in july anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koomkie Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 I think he waits, gets traded and refuses to sign anywhere until the summer. I also think the Sabres offer him more money than anyone else does. this is my guess as well. and i am fine with that. i do not want to give anything up for him. and i wouldn't mind him on the team. even as an overpayment. although i really want the sabres to tank next season and pick up....well...you know Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FolignosJock Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 this is my guess as well. and i am fine with that. i do not want to give anything up for him. and i wouldn't mind him on the team. even as an overpayment. although i really want the sabres to tank next season and pick up....well...you know Derrick Roy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 I don't think he gets traded unless the team he is going to signs him long term Thats why the Rangers are letting teams speak to his agent to work out a deal now I don't think he will sign with another team unless they meet his reported demands because he thinks he will get those demands as a UFA. And I don't think a team will meet his demands and give up a huge package for him when they can sign him in the summer and give up nothing. That's the type of contract you only give a UFA. If doesn't do a trade and sign, and the Rangers don't meet his demands, then they are forced to trade him as a rental. It's no different than the Vanek situation because Callahan gets to dictate his terms. The player earned his UFA status and the agent is making sure he maximizes it. I'm glad to see the Rangers getting played like this for once. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 I don't want Callahan for seven years at that money. I'm saving that cap hit for signing our highly talented RFAs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FolignosJock Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 I don't want Callahan for seven years at that money. I'm saving that cap hit for signing our highly talented RFAs. we would need 4 RFAs who were top 25 players to even get into cap trouble..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.