nfreeman 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. Who? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FolignosJock Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Who? Check out my sig and then replace it with the prorating contracts calculator. A lot of people on this board want us to avoid signing a great free agent because of the hypothetical of all of our rookies and future draft picks panning out and somehow commanding enough cap to get us into trouble. Which is of course unlikely and the exact problem you want to have as a GM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTS Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Exactly but i wouldnt give up much because I think we are getting him in july anyways. The Sabres may be forced to give up more than money however if the deal is a trade and sign. They are not competing against UFA anymore. Now they are competing against another team willing to offer him money AND what that team will give to the Rangers to get him in the first place. So in that situation the Sabres are not only forced to pay for Callahan but also give up something just to get him and sign him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FolignosJock Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 The Sabres may be forced to give up more than money however if the deal is a trade and sign. They are not competing against UFA anymore. Now they are competing against another team willing to offer him money AND what that team will give to the Rangers to get him in the first place. So in that situation the Sabres are not only forced to pay for Callahan but also give up something just to get him and sign him. exactly which is why i am willing to give up larsson and a pick to be the team that gets to sign him to the deal. However I wouldnt give anything more. I dont think there will be a huge market for signing rights which is what this basically is because a contender isnt giving up roster players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assquatch Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 (edited) 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. It was just one of two examples (one of which was incorrect as you pointed out) of teams purposefully acquiring the top pick in the past for a generational talent. Those examples taken together was also just one of several signs the Sabres were willing to actually see the tank through (into next year) and really restock the cupboard. My point stands. In fact I was misremembering who tanked for whom. It wasn't for Lemieux and Crosby as I stated but Pittsburgh's coach admitted they tanked for Lemieux, and the NHL investigated Ottawa losing on purpose for Daigle, thus instituting the lottery system moving forward. My memory of the draft process was hazy too. I remembered the Sabres had the same number of chances as the Penguins, but I also remember your chance was reduced if you had the #1 pick recently, so I looked it up. The Sabres, Penguins, Blue Jackets and Rangers all had the best chance (three balls in the lottery). Not sure why the Penguins don't seem to have been penalized for drafting Fleury 1st in '03, although it might have to do with recent playoff appearances also. In my search, I also happened on this video, which shows how the draft lottery works now (or at least how it worked last year): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWVtqAQzjYY Edit: ...and not to get all conspiracy theory but why does the video cut out each time the gentleman picks a ball out of that machine? Was this broadcast live anywhere? If the point of the video is transparency, why blatently edit the video like that? Edited February 4, 2014 by Assquatch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Does anyone think someone is going to give Callahan a $42 million contract and give the Rangers more than the price of a standard rental? Most hockey people are saying most teams wouldn't do the the contract on its own, let alone the contract as well as giving up a chunk of their future. A few would do the contract. More would do a rental trade. But both? I guess all it takes is one, but I can't see a team that fits the bill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FolignosJock Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 It was just one of two examples (one of which was incorrect as you pointed out) of teams purposefully acquiring the top pick in the past for a generational talent. Those examples taken together was also just one of several signs the Sabres were willing to actually see the tank through (into next year) and really restock the cupboard. My point stands. In fact I was misremembering who tanked for whom. It wasn't for Lemieux and Crosby as I stated but Pittsburgh's coach admitted they tanked for Lemieux, and the NHL investigated Ottawa losing on purpose for Daigle, thus instituting the lottery system moving forward. My memory of the draft process was hazy too. I remembered the Sabres had the same number of chances as the Penguins, but I also remember your chance was reduced if you had the #1 pick recently, so I looked it up. The Sabres, Penguins, Blue Jackets and Rangers all had the best chance (three balls in the lottery). Not sure why the Penguins don't seem to have been penalized for drafting Fleury 1st in '03, although it might have to do with recent playoff appearances also. In my search, I also happened on this video, which shows how the draft lottery works now (or at least how it worked last year): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWVtqAQzjYY So we had an equal shot for crosby? Gosh WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assquatch Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Yeah I was just thinking about how amazing it would be to have Crosby centering Leino and Stafford :sick: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 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. I think that a team will make a deal and meet his demands just to make sure they don't have to worry about a bidding war for his services.He is asking for 7 now, but if he becomes a UFA, will someone offer him 7.5, or 8? I think there will be teams contending looking at him and may give him what he wants, plus want him for the playoffs this year Vanek has not really given any figures yet on what he is looking for, all we know is that he turned down a significant offer from the isles (rumored to be around what he makes now) and has said he will most likely test the market. Yeah I was just thinking about how amazing it would be to have Crosby centering Leino and Stafford :sick: Leino has looked very good having played with less prior to becoming a Sabre, I would imagine we would be talking very differently about leino and stafford if Crosby was here playing with them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Crotch Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 He will resign with the Rangers... the noise is just his agent playing the game to get his client the biggest deal possible (very effectively, I might add). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 It was just one of two examples (one of which was incorrect as you pointed out) of teams purposefully acquiring the top pick in the past for a generational talent. Those examples taken together was also just one of several signs the Sabres were willing to actually see the tank through (into next year) and really restock the cupboard. My point stands. In fact I was misremembering who tanked for whom. It wasn't for Lemieux and Crosby as I stated but Pittsburgh's coach admitted they tanked for Lemieux, and the NHL investigated Ottawa losing on purpose for Daigle, thus instituting the lottery system moving forward. My memory of the draft process was hazy too. I remembered the Sabres had the same number of chances as the Penguins, but I also remember your chance was reduced if you had the #1 pick recently, so I looked it up. The Sabres, Penguins, Blue Jackets and Rangers all had the best chance (three balls in the lottery). Not sure why the Penguins don't seem to have been penalized for drafting Fleury 1st in '03, although it might have to do with recent playoff appearances also. In my search, I also happened on this video, which shows how the draft lottery works now (or at least how it worked last year): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWVtqAQzjYY Edit: ...and not to get all conspiracy theory but why does the video cut out each time the gentleman picks a ball out of that machine? Was this broadcast live anywhere? If the point of the video is transparency, why blatently edit the video like that? Both of those situations, Lemieux and Daigle happened before the Lottery system, when it was easier to tank for the #1 pick, and it only worked out well for one of those teams....... My argument/issue was just with using Crosby as an example of a team manipulating its roster to get someone, it just wasn't the case for Crosby because there was no season played the year before he was drafted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Assquatch Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Both of those situations, Lemieux and Daigle happened before the Lottery system, when it was easier to tank for the #1 pick, and it only worked out well for one of those teams....... My argument/issue was just with using Crosby as an example of a team manipulating its roster to get someone, it just wasn't the case for Crosby because there was no season played the year before he was drafted. Thank you your reply inspired me to de-fog my memory on that situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Who? We've got kids in the system already who we KNOW we're going to have to pay at some point. I see no need to lock up Callahan for seven years. I'll take him in a trade in 3 years though. I don't see the point unless we're adding him for a playoff push. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 I think that a team will make a deal and meet his demands just to make sure they don't have to worry about a bidding war for his services. He is asking for 7 now, but if he becomes a UFA, will someone offer him 7.5, or 8? I think there will be teams contending looking at him and may give him what he wants, plus want him for the playoffs this year Vanek has not really given any figures yet on what he is looking for, all we know is that he turned down a significant offer from the isles (rumored to be around what he makes now) and has said he will most likely test the market. Leino has looked very good having played with less prior to becoming a Sabre, I would imagine we would be talking very differently about leino and stafford if Crosby was here playing with them I don't think a real contender is going to trade for Callahan and give him a huge contract as part of the deal. Maybe in the offseason, but not right now. The risk of disturbing the chemistry on a good team is too high. He will resign with the Rangers... the noise is just his agent playing the game to get his client the biggest deal possible (very effectively, I might add). I agree that this is still the most likely outcome. Still, there is a pretty good chance he goes to UFA. He's been giving blood, sweat and tears his whole life and he's a few months away from the biggest payday he'll ever see in his life. He's not going to sign with the Rangers for $20MM less than he can get as a UFA. We've got kids in the system already who we KNOW we're going to have to pay at some point. I see no need to lock up Callahan for seven years. I'll take him in a trade in 3 years though. I don't see the point unless we're adding him for a playoff push. Again: who? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FolignosJock Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 We've got kids in the system already who we KNOW we're going to have to pay at some point. I see no need to lock up Callahan for seven years. I'll take him in a trade in 3 years though. I don't see the point unless we're adding him for a playoff push. There literally is NO ONE in the system who is going to command a salary in RFA that would put us in cap trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunkard Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 We've got kids in the system already who we KNOW we're going to have to pay at some point. I see no need to lock up Callahan for seven years. I'll take him in a trade in 3 years though. I don't see the point unless we're adding him for a playoff push. This doesn't make any sense to me. First, I can't think of any of our players who will be commanding big raises in the next few years, unless you think Murray is going to give Ennis a Hodgson type deal and even if that was the case we'd still have plenty of room to fit Callahan and an overpaid Ennis. Secondly, if you don't want Callahan next year, why would you want him in 3 years when he'd be 3 years older, still commanding a high cap hit, and we're 3 years closer to some of our better prospects like Girgensons, Zadarov, Ristoleinen, and our next 2 1st round tank picks heading towards bigger contracts? Even if we paid Callahan $8 million (which I hope we don't) that's still half a million less than the cap hits of Stafford and Leino combined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FolignosJock Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 This doesn't make any sense to me. First, I can't think of any of our players who will be commanding big raises in the next few years, unless you think Murray is going to give Ennis a Hodgson type deal and even if that was the case we'd still have plenty of room to fit Callahan and an overpaid Ennis. Secondly, if you don't want Callahan next year, why would you want him in 3 years when he'd be 3 years older, still commanding a high cap hit, and we're 3 years closer to some of our better prospects like Girgensons, Zadarov, Ristoleinen, and our next 2 1st round tank picks heading towards bigger contracts? Even if we paid Callahan $8 million (which I hope we don't) that's still half a million less than the cap hits of Stafford and Leino combined. I have made this argument over 9 pages in the rumours thread. The only way we can get in cap trouble by signing Callahan is if each and every one of our prospects realized their potential and realizes it earlier than projected. Then we would have just too dang many top six forwards, and for some reason people on this board think that is a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 I don't think a real contender is going to trade for Callahan and give him a huge contract as part of the deal. Maybe in the offseason, but not right now. The risk of disturbing the chemistry on a good team is too high. Guys better then Callahan get traded to contenders all the time without disturbing chemistry, and if giving him an extension immediately is going to disrupt chemistry, you have some bigger problems with your team. They could always have a hand shake agreement on a deal that will be announced when the season is done. If the team is willing to give him a big deal in the summer, then they would be willing to right now since it won't affect the cap til the extension starts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunkard Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 I have made this argument over 9 pages in the rumours thread. The only way we can get in cap trouble by signing Callahan is if each and every one of our prospects realized their potential and realizes it earlier than projected. Then we would have just too dang many top six forwards, and for some reason people on this board think that is a problem. I'm with you. I'd rather have one overpaid "star" then 2 or 3 overpaid nobodies like Leino taking up the same cap space. With all of our youth in the pipeline and top picks to come, cap space shouldn't be an issue on this team for at least 5-7 more seasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Guys better then Callahan get traded to contenders all the time without disturbing chemistry, and if giving him an extension immediately is going to disrupt chemistry, you have some bigger problems with your team. They could always have a hand shake agreement on a deal that will be announced when the season is done. If the team is willing to give him a big deal in the summer, then they would be willing to right now since it won't affect the cap til the extension starts Can you think of an example of this happening? (i.e. a big name player being traded at the deadline to a contender and signing a fat extension as part of the deal)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowPhysics Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Re: Callahan for $Texas. Why not? We're likely dumping Leino, so he'll be off the books. And if we're going to waste money, let's gamble it on someone who may or may not be the second coming of Chris Drury. It'll also make Drew Stafford even more expendable. Additionally, examining why the Oilers suck fat ######, it's not just their lack of defensemen. They have a distinct lack of veteran leadership on that team. I get why we'd want to stock up a few character guys to lead the youngin's into battle for the next few years. It's the same reasoning for why you'd want to keep Steve Ott around. I understand the counter argument: cap space is an asset, especially 4-6 years down the road. But you're getting veteran leadership and goal scoring from a Rochester, NY guy who had played for the Buffalo Jr Sabres. He could end up being the captain his entire time here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 He could end up being the captain his entire time here. Nope. Girgensons is the next C. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 . If the team is willing to give him a big deal in the summer, then they would be willing to right now since it won't affect the cap til the extension starts Not necessarily. According to the NY Post, Buffalo is apparently one that would sign him, but won't trade and sign for him. You don't seem to be factoring in how part of the willingness to give the big deal in the summer is the fact that they are signing a player they don't have to give anyone up to get. Why would the Vancouver Canucks, for example, trade Ryan Kesler for Callahan now when they could sign him in the summer for nothing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Not necessarily. According to the NY Post, Buffalo is apparently one that would sign him, but won't trade and sign for him. You don't seem to be factoring in how part of the willingness to give the big deal in the summer is the fact that they are signing a player they don't have to give anyone up to get. Why would the Vancouver Canucks, for example, trade Ryan Kesler for Callahan now when they could sign him in the summer for nothing? 1> Playoff run (not in Buffalo's case) 2> Fear that he might agree on a deal with another team in a trade-sign arrangement. If you wait until FA, you're hoping he doesn't sign with the Rangers or the team he gets traded to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 @WFAN660 Sather needs to trade Callahan before #Sochi freeze, or he'll be playing with fire, writes @HartnettHockey. http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/02/04/hartnett-sather-dont-play-with-fire-trade-callahan-before-olympics-freeze/ … #NYR 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.