Derrico Posted June 28, 2017 Report Share Posted June 28, 2017 (edited) Two years ago for Tarasenko. Last year for the other two.I know rfa years matter but jack is better than tarasenko. He's better than the other two as well. Surprised how cheaply Florida got barkov. Edited June 28, 2017 by Derrico Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted June 28, 2017 Report Share Posted June 28, 2017 Yes I did. and yes, it was precious. :lol: I'd say "DAMN PHONE" but it was a pretty awesome typo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted June 28, 2017 Report Share Posted June 28, 2017 Jack is better than all of them, IMO, and I'm willing to pay him more. But he certainly hasn't proven he is $2-3 million better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derrico Posted June 28, 2017 Report Share Posted June 28, 2017 Jack is better than all of them, IMO, and I'm willing to pay him more. But he certainly hasn't proven he is $2-3 million better. If tarasenko got $7.5 you don't think Jack is worth $2 mil more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pi2000 Posted June 28, 2017 Report Share Posted June 28, 2017 Players' contracts should actually be proportional to their +/-. Say the best + player in the league falls in at +40. He should get the $10 mil deal, so 1 plus should be worth about $250,000. Therefore Jack actually owes the Sabres $3.25 mil next season. I misunderestimated you. Perhaps I can find new ways to motivate him. 1 year, $1.5M. You know... a prove-it deal. Hourly pay would be a great motivator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted June 28, 2017 Report Share Posted June 28, 2017 If tarasenko got $7.5 you don't think Jack is worth $2 mil more? Maybe. But so far Tarasenko has produced more. This is what I mean by wanting to pay Jack based on what you want him to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Flagg Posted June 28, 2017 Report Share Posted June 28, 2017 This comment may not fly well, but when Jack is a $9 million player, I want to see less of those disengaged periods, a lot less. I don't mean it as an insult, or as singling him out. His peers do it too. It's a challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted June 28, 2017 Report Share Posted June 28, 2017 (edited) This comment may not fly well, but when Jack is a $9 million player, I want to see less of those disengaged periods, a lot less. I don't mean it as an insult, or as singling him out. His peers do it too. It's a challenge. It's the truth. The guys making $9 million have won Stanley Cups, or at least gone to the finals.Jack hasn't played a playoff game or scored 60 points. Edited June 28, 2017 by dudacek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted June 28, 2017 Report Share Posted June 28, 2017 It's the truth. The guys making $9 million have won Stanley Cups, or at least gone to the finals. Jack hasn't played a playoff game or scored 60 points. If I throw an empty beer bottle into my monitor tonight, it's your fault. This is Mike Harrington-esque argumentation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derrico Posted June 28, 2017 Report Share Posted June 28, 2017 Maybe. But so far Tarasenko has produced more. This is what I mean by wanting to pay Jack based on what you want him to be. Fair but he had a better ppg then tarasenko last season coming off a devastating injury. He's a better player today and 4 years younger. He just has t been in the league long enough to put up those points. I'd rather a guy get paid on potential (especially on a guy with huge hype that hasn't disappointed) than so many guys who are just paid for past production. If I throw an empty beer bottle into my monitor tonight, it's your fault. This is Mike Harrington-esque argumentation. LOL. Good to see us back on the same mindset again. I missed ya blue lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted June 28, 2017 Report Share Posted June 28, 2017 This comment may not fly well, but when Jack is a $9 million player, I want to see less of those disengaged periods, a lot less. I don't mean it as an insult, or as singling him out. His peers do it too. It's a challenge. I don't think too many are going to argue with this. I think a coach he doesn't hate and the captaincy* will help this along. *I officially want to move out the old leadership core. Though I think Gionta can still play, he was captain while that locker room was a disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted June 28, 2017 Report Share Posted June 28, 2017 Maybe. But so far Tarasenko has produced more. This is what I mean by wanting to pay Jack based on what you want him to be. I'd rather pay for likely achieved future performance than unlikely to be replicated past performance. See: Toews, Blackhawks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Flagg Posted June 28, 2017 Report Share Posted June 28, 2017 If I throw an empty beer bottle into my monitor tonight, it's your fault. This is Mike Harrington-esque argumentation. I think duda wants to give him that money, but is agreeing with my increased scrutiny/expectations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwksndmonster Posted June 28, 2017 Report Share Posted June 28, 2017 It's the truth. The guys making $9 million have won Stanley Cups, or at least gone to the finals. Jack hasn't played a playoff game or scored 60 points. ... Is this really dudacek? I think duda wants to give him that money, but is agreeing with my increased scrutiny/expectations.I mean, I don't think anyone isn't expecting Jack to grow up. He's still a kid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted June 28, 2017 Report Share Posted June 28, 2017 I think duda wants to give him that money, but is agreeing with my increased scrutiny/expectations. I'm talking about the points and playoffs thing. It reeked of Harrington's "Eichel needs to score more goals, his assists don't count enough" trope from when Eichel had like 2 goals and 13 assists over 15 games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted June 28, 2017 Report Share Posted June 28, 2017 If I throw an empty beer bottle into my monitor tonight, it's your fault. This is Mike Harrington-esque argumentation. Top 10 contracts: Subban, Malkin, Kane, Kopitar, Toews, Perry, Stamkos, Crosby and Lundqvist. Only exception is Ovechkin. You might not agree with the argument, but NHL GMs do. And I put up with a lot from you, but the Harrington card? I feel like I just took a Shea Weber blast to the gap in my shin pad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottysabres Posted June 28, 2017 Report Share Posted June 28, 2017 I don't see him signing a long term deal for under 10. He knows what he's worth to this team. I think somewhere between 9/9.5 and 11 mil for 8 years is what we'll see. And worth every penny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted June 28, 2017 Report Share Posted June 28, 2017 (edited) Top 10 contracts: Subban, Malkin, Kane, Kopitar, Toews, Perry, Stamkos, Crosby and Lundqvist. Only exception is Ovechkin. You might not agree with the argument, but NHL GMs do. And I put up with a lot from you, but the Harrington card? I feel like I just took a Shea Weber blast to the gap in my shin pad. I'm sorry, you're right, that was over the top. But there's nothing that makes my blood burn more than judging individuals by team metrics, especially in freaking hockey. Edit: I'm also not entirely sure GMs look at raw dollars. Keep in mind, they always talk about contracts becoming a better value as the cap increases--at the very least, they're implicitly aware of contracts relative to the cap ceiling. Edited June 28, 2017 by TrueBlueGED Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted June 28, 2017 Report Share Posted June 28, 2017 I'm sorry, you're right, that was over the top. But there's nothing that makes my blood burn more than judging individuals by team metrics, especially in freaking hockey. Wait, so Toews isn't as good as Crosby and Malkin, even though he has 3 cups? YOU are the drunk, around these parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted June 28, 2017 Report Share Posted June 28, 2017 $68 over 8 years. If the Boston is strong in this one, fine give him $8.625/yr for 8. :p My best guess is the $8.5/x8. Sets him for life. Makes him highest paid player on the team & leaves cap room to keep very talented 2nd bananas on the team. This kid seems to want to win. (Losing focus at the end of a lost year under a Goober not being held against a kid that can't legally drink in this state.) Taking a slight haircut to keep a strong team could happen (at least in dreams). ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted June 29, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 29, 2017 (edited) Top 10 contracts: Subban, Malkin, Kane, Kopitar, Toews, Perry, Stamkos, Crosby and Lundqvist. Only exception is Ovechkin. You might not agree with the argument, but NHL GMs do. And I put up with a lot from you, but the Harrington card? I feel like I just took a Shea Weber blast to the gap in my shin pad. To be fair 1/2 of those players have never won a Cup; Perry did but as a throw in rookie on a much better team. I'd also argue it's very evident that those aren't the best 10 players in the league. At the time of their contracts they were, maybe, but for at least 1/2 of them, it had nothing to do with winning Edited June 29, 2017 by WildCard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huckleberry Posted June 29, 2017 Report Share Posted June 29, 2017 seems you guys are all talking long term deals, He'll go for a bridge deal or we overpay for a longterm deal. but I can't see him getting more than 8x8 mill. And then we are paying for what we think he might become. bridge deal is it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted June 29, 2017 Report Share Posted June 29, 2017 (edited) To be fair 1/2 of those players have never won a Cup; Perry did but as a throw in rookie on a much better team. I'd also argue it's very evident that those aren't the best 10 players in the league. At the time of their contracts they were, maybe, but for at least 1/2 of them, it had nothing to do with winning Five of them signed those deals after a cup, not counting Perry, who technically did, and has played 114 playoff games and been to the final four multiple times. Subban, Lundqvist, and Stamkos have all been to the finals on top of their regular season success. They have all had success in the playoffs and the regular season before signing those deals. Ovie, is the exception, but has been the best goal scorer in hockey, for a decade now. I'm not saying what should be, I'm saying what is: they have earned their big tickets performing where is mattered most. Edited June 29, 2017 by dudacek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted June 29, 2017 Report Share Posted June 29, 2017 seems you guys are all talking long term deals, He'll go for a bridge deal or we overpay for a longterm deal. but I can't see him getting more than 8x8 mill. And then we are paying for what we think he might become. bridge deal is it. He's not going to sign a "bridge" deal. This is his chance for a big payday and he'll get it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted June 29, 2017 Report Share Posted June 29, 2017 If the Sabres bridge-deal Eichel, the only poster here who will have a bigger tantrum than me is ... who? Blue? It'll be a helluva competition, that's for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts