bunomatic Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 Pierre LeBrun @Real_ESPNLeBrun 6m6 minutes ago Blues still haven't signed Tarasenko but will 100 percent match any offer sheet for him from another team. I don't get it. Why allow another team to set the terms ? If he gets a HUGE offer that you've told everyone you intend to match you're allowing another team to dictate terms which should be arrived at inhouse and possibly lower. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowPhysics Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) If the Blues were afraid of him not signing their offer and going to arbitration - where the result would likely be moderately-priced but SHORT term deal that would yield no compensation when completed - then the better path is to let another team determine the market rate, which then gives the Blues the power to commit to or walk away from Tarasenko, with the option of collecting compensation if they walk. The down side for the Blues is that the financial component of a deal (salary, term, cap hit) is out of their hands, but the power of committing to a likely long term deal or collecting compensation is reserved. And if Tarasenko's agent is any good, he's pushing Tarasenko to collect offer sheets anyways, and the financial negotiation was never in the Blues hands to begin with. Edited July 1, 2015 by IKnowPhysics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 So is your plan to offer sheet Tarasenko, then trade him to get the picks back in three years? Can only have so many core guys and you have to anticipate big raises coming to Kane, Eichel, Reinhart, Zemgus and Risto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 The Tarasenko dream died when we got O'Reilly. Unless you're comfortable going without a blue line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 Tarasenko, I don't think is a target for Buffalo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunomatic Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 If the Blues were afraid of him not signing their offer and going to arbitration - where the result would likely be moderately-priced but SHORT term deal that would yield no compensation when completed - then the better path is to let another team determine the market rate, which then gives the Blues the power to commit to or walk away from Tarasenko, with the option of collecting compensation if they walk. The down side for the Blues is that the financial component of a deal (salary, term, cap hit) is out of their hands, but the power of committing to a likely long term deal or collecting compensation is reserved. And if Tarasenko's agent is any good, he's pushing Tarasenko to collect offer sheets anyways, and the financial negotiation was never in the Blues hands to begin with. That answered my question. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowPhysics Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 So is your plan to offer sheet Tarasenko, then trade him to get the picks back in three years? Can only have so many core guys and you have to anticipate big raises coming to Kane, Eichel, Reinhart, Zemgus and Risto. True, but if there's one thing we've learned in the salary cap era, it is when you're talking about top-level talent, you can't fear the cap. I'd make the acquisition and make the hard choices later... which may or may not actually be hard, depending on player development and salary cap increases. If we have a shot at acquiring top-level talent, we should seriously consider it, and while doing so, keep in mind that we're better prepared to be aggressive than most other teams because of our cap situation. Sure, Boston, Philly, and Calgary put themselves in cap hell at one time or another, but Chicago, Pittsburgh, and others have managed quite expertly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 True, but if there's one thing we've learned in the salary cap era, it is when you're talking about top-level talent, you can't fear the cap. I'd make the acquisition and make the hard choices later... which may or may not actually be hard, depending on player development and salary cap increases. If we have a shot at acquiring top-level talent, we should seriously consider it, and while doing so, keep in mind that we're better prepared to be aggressive than most other teams because of our cap situation. Sure, Boston, Philly, and Calgary put themselves in cap hell at one time or another, but Chicago, Pittsburgh, and others have managed quite expertly. Mostly true, but you can concentrate that money too heavily in stars at one position. If we gave Tarasenko a massive offer and he took it, I have no idea how we afford a defense corps three years from now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 I don't get it. Why allow another team to set the terms ? If he gets a HUGE offer that you've told everyone you intend to match you're allowing another team to dictate terms which should be arrived at inhouse and possibly lower. STL could be thinking that the most anyone would offer-sheet him for is $9.1MM x 5 years (since $9.1MM is, IIRC, the highest a team can go before getting to the 4 first-rounders threshold, and 5 years is the longest term a team can go in determining the average cap hit) -- and STL would prefer to match that offer sheet and keep VT for that cash and term relative to whatever VT's agent is asking for (which could be $10MM+ x 8 years). So is your plan to offer sheet Tarasenko, then trade him to get the picks back in three years? Can only have so many core guys and you have to anticipate big raises coming to Kane, Eichel, Reinhart, Zemgus and Risto. I'd offer-sheet him at $9.1MM x 5 years and worry about the other guys later. Inevitably someone will wash out, get hurt, want a trade or have some other outcome that will result in that guy not getting a big contract from the Sabres. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowPhysics Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 Mostly true, but you can concentrate that money too heavily in stars at one position. If we gave Tarasenko a massive offer and he took it, I have no idea how we afford a defense corps three years from now. The league salary cap balloons to $150M and the 8 year, $7.300M AAV deal for Tarasenko will look like a steal. :beer: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 I vote for not spending tons of money on wingers, that is what I vote for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rasmus_ Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 Stewart on a lower term 2 year deal! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 I vote for not spending tons of money on wingers, that is what I vote for.Right there with you, and for not trading away 4 1sts in the process Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunomatic Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 STL could be thinking that the most anyone would offer-sheet him for is $9.1MM x 5 years (since $9.1MM is, IIRC, the highest a team can go before getting to the 4 first-rounders threshold, and 5 years is the longest term a team can go in determining the average cap hit) -- and STL would prefer to match that offer sheet and keep VT for that cash and term relative to whatever VT's agent is asking for (which could be $10MM+ x 8 years). I'd offer-sheet him at $9.1MM x 5 years and worry about the other guys later. Inevitably someone will wash out, get hurt, want a trade or have some other outcome that will result in that guy not getting a big contract from the Sabres. Got it. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 Stewart on a lower term 2 year deal! No. He's bad and we have no room for him anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowPhysics Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 Right there with you, and for not trading away 4 1sts in the process Yeah, I don't want to move four firsts for anyone. But I'd move a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd pretty handily, even recognizing the risk in moving a decent Mathews lottery ticket. However, if we acquire the good chess pieces, that lottery chance could be small, reducing the risk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 Yeah, I don't want to move four firsts for anyone. But I'd move a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd pretty handily, even recognizing the risk in moving a decent Mathews lottery ticket. However, if we acquire the good chess pieces, that lottery chance could be small, reducing the risk.Our 2016 1st is entirely in play for me, Matthews or not. I don't believe we'll be a bottom 5 or even bottom 10 team and the minute percentage of wining the lottery after that isn't a concernIMO. Other than that, I'm with Liger and others about his price Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerme1 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 STL could be thinking that the most anyone would offer-sheet him for is $9.1MM x 5 years (since $9.1MM is, IIRC, the highest a team can go before getting to the 4 first-rounders threshold, and 5 years is the longest term a team can go in determining the average cap hit) -- and STL would prefer to match that offer sheet and keep VT for that cash and term relative to whatever VT's agent is asking for (which could be $10MM+ x 8 years). I'd offer-sheet him at $9.1MM x 5 years and worry about the other guys later. Inevitably someone will wash out, get hurt, want a trade or have some other outcome that will result in that guy not getting a big contract from the Sabres. Nice info. Great opinion and shows why they are willing to let him get an offer sheet. It might cost them less than the agent is requesting. 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.