LGR4GM Posted July 26, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 2016 Risto will get signed, I think the 2 questions are 3yr deal for x or 8 year deal for y. That's the hold up. It'll get done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted July 31, 2016 Report Share Posted July 31, 2016 Barrie gets done at $5.5M for four years Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pi2000 Posted July 31, 2016 Report Share Posted July 31, 2016 Barrie gets done at $5.5M for four years As a measuring stick, that would put Risto in the 4.5-5.0 range for same term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted July 31, 2016 Report Share Posted July 31, 2016 As a measuring stick, that would put Risto in the 4.5-5.0 range for same term. Maybe, if the Sabres aren't buying UFA years. Barrie gave up two UFA years for more now. I'm not sure if Risto is a UFA in four years or five. Seems high for a Risto bridge and low for a contract that lets him be a UFA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derrico Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 August 9th now.....what are we around 6 weeks from training camp? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 It's weird how long it's gone on. Is it somehow contingent on what Vesey does, and what may flow from that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derrico Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 It's weird how long it's gone on. Is it somehow contingent on what Vesey does, and what may flow from that? I can't see it as Vesey salary won't be substantial so it shouldn't be based on cap implications. No idea though. I was surprised when he wasn't signed before July 1st. Especially considering the comparables. But whatever. Then July ends, now we're nearing the middle of August. The strange thing is there are so many comparables out there that are all similar numbers so I would love to know which side is looking for either longer or shorter term deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ct fab Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 Has nothing to do with Vesey - his salary would be $925k. Now Girgs holdup may be Vesey related Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 There have been some notable signings like Vatanen and Ekblad and Barrie. There are some big names still out there though, like Lindholm and Trouba, who might be his best comparables. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Flagg Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 Monahan and Gaudreau are still waiting too, aren't they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted August 9, 2016 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 Monahan and Gaudreau are still waiting too, aren't they? This is true. These deals always end up getting done before the season starts. We'll just let it play out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pi2000 Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 This is true. These deals always end up getting done before the season starts. We'll just let it play out. Not gonna happen, but would you consider trading Rasmus for either Gaudreau or Monahan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Flagg Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 Not gonna happen, but would you consider trading Rasmus for either Gaudreau or Monahan?Value-wise, I'd do Gaudreau, but in real life, I wouldn't decimate our defensive potential like that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted August 9, 2016 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 Not gonna happen, but would you consider trading Rasmus for either Gaudreau or Monahan?No, neither fill a need for Buffalo. Value-wise, I'd do Gaudreau, but in real life, I wouldn't decimate our defensive potential like thatI'd go for Monahan. He's a better all around player. But we have ROR so why bother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Flagg Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 No, neither fill a need for Buffalo. I'd go for Monahan. He's a better all around player. But we have ROR so why bother. Gaudreau was top 10 in scoring in his second NHL season. Sean is great, but he's a tier below Gaudreau. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted August 9, 2016 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 Depends if you want Evander Kane or Jonathan Toews on your team. You're valuing scoring higher then I am. Which is fine, just different Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Flagg Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 Depends if you want Evander Kane or Jonathan Toews on your team. You're valuing scoring higher then I am. Which is fine, just differentIf by Evander you mean Patrick, then I agree with the comparison you just made :P And yes, I take Kane over Toews 100% of the time. To each his own Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3putt Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 I wouldn't trade a valuable asset and create a hole for an asset of less importance based on need. We would have no one to fill the top pair hole. Both are good potentially great players, but not worth creating more need on d. Jmho. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted August 9, 2016 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 If by Evander you mean Patrick, then I agree with the comparison you just made :P And yes, I take Kane over Toews 100% of the time. To each his ownSorry, yes I mean Patrick Kane not Evander. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pi2000 Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 I wouldn't trade a valuable asset and create a hole for an asset of less importance based on need. We would have no one to fill the top pair hole. Both are good potentially great players, but not worth creating more need on d. Jmho. How about a 3-way deal with Anaheim for Lindholm? to CGY: Ristolainen to BUF: Lindholm to ANA: Gaudreau Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 Why? We already addressed our L/R imbalance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted August 9, 2016 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 Why would we even want to trade Ristolainen at this stage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 If you can turn Risto into Lindholm you do it, but I don't think that's possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3putt Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 If you can turn Risto into Lindholm you do it, but I don't think that's possible. This. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pi2000 Posted August 9, 2016 Report Share Posted August 9, 2016 Why would we even want to trade Ristolainen at this stage? It solves a problem for all 3 teams. CGY needs d-men. ANA needs young skilled wingers and have too many d-men. (I suppose they could just go Lindholm for Gaudreau and be done with it, but that wouldn't be any fun for us) BUF needs a stud D-man of GMTM's choosing, not one of Darcy's picks. 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.