Toggle sidebar

Around the League '16-'17 Other Teams' Free Agent Frenzy

Status
Not open for further replies.
deeshamrock said:
That's not a surprise, he told Torterella when the Caps won that series he was done in DC. And as soon as Lou went to NYI, you knew this was at the top of his list. Keeping Tavares, that conversation Lou had with him, started with making the right changes. Firing Snow was the biggest one, but getting Trotz wsa critical, along with goaltending and defense, that will help keep JT there.
Click to expand...

Yep, makes too much sense unless he has a change of heart and wants to retire on top.

As speculated, Grubauer seems logical there as well.

If not the Islanders, I would be intrigued by Grubauer in Buffalo. Maybe they go out and add a Skinner to pair with Eichel, could help turn them around.

I don’t think they even qualify Lehner. He was Murray's guy.
 
Last edited:
The problems of bad contracts stems entirely from the RFA policy. In today's NHL, a forward is most productive in their RFA years, yet are completely handcuffed from cashing out on those years. This means that when they start to enter their less productive years, they NEED to cash out or else their lifetime incomes will suffer for it. In short, young players are being taken advantage of, especially young and talented players. It is no surprise that the NHL has moved into being about "cost-controlled talent", because that talent is basically neutered from being paid what they deserve.

Two groups are at fault for this; the first are the owners, who obviously want to take advantage of any talent they can. The second is the player's union, who seem to not understand that they are supposed to represent all players, not just veterans. The fact that abolishing RFA isn't a top goal for the PU is ludicrous to me.

K17 mentioned before that the key to retaining talent was to know when to give the big second contract; it doesn't help that the owners are entirely incentivized to not give the big contracts until it will assuredly bite them in the ass. If we want to see a change in contracts and payments, the rules need to change fundamentally. Lowering max contract length just hurts older players more and unnecessarily, continuing to give more and more power to the owners.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raccoon Jesus and Chazz Reinhold
lexlavender said:
The problems of bad contracts stems entirely from the RFA policy. In today's NHL, a forward is most productive in their RFA years, yet are completely handcuffed from cashing out on those years. This means that when they start to enter their less productive years, they NEED to cash out or else their lifetime incomes will suffer for it. In short, young players are being taken advantage of, especially young and talented players. It is no surprise that the NHL has moved into being about "cost-controlled talent", because that talent is basically neutered from being paid what they deserve.

Two groups are at fault for this; the first are the owners, who obviously want to take advantage of any talent they can. The second is the player's union, who seem to not understand that they are supposed to represent all players, not just veterans. The fact that abolishing RFA isn't a top goal for the PU is ludicrous to me.

K17 mentioned before that the key to retaining talent was to know when to give the big second contract; it doesn't help that the owners are entirely incentivized to not give the big contracts until it will assuredly bite them in the ass. If we want to see a change in contracts and payments, the rules need to change fundamentally. Lowering max contract length just hurts older players more and unnecessarily, continuing to give more and more power to the owners.
Click to expand...

I think it might be tough to abolish RFA, even if it was the only issue the PA was willing to die for. They've chipped away at it, and they still have a few layers to go before they can get rid of it. The league belongs to the owners. If the PA wants less restrictions on free agency, they have to give something up for that. Shorter deals, less guaranteed money, a lower split, something. Or, be willing to go play in Europe or Russia. The McDavid level player has to be ready to go play in Sweden, and not just during a lockout, but for as long as needed by the PA in a real fight.
 
lexlavender said:
The problems of bad contracts stems entirely from the RFA policy. In today's NHL, a forward is most productive in their RFA years, yet are completely handcuffed from cashing out on those years. This means that when they start to enter their less productive years, they NEED to cash out or else their lifetime incomes will suffer for it. In short, young players are being taken advantage of, especially young and talented players. It is no surprise that the NHL has moved into being about "cost-controlled talent", because that talent is basically neutered from being paid what they deserve.

Two groups are at fault for this; the first are the owners, who obviously want to take advantage of any talent they can. The second is the player's union, who seem to not understand that they are supposed to represent all players, not just veterans. The fact that abolishing RFA isn't a top goal for the PU is ludicrous to me.

K17 mentioned before that the key to retaining talent was to know when to give the big second contract; it doesn't help that the owners are entirely incentivized to not give the big contracts until it will assuredly bite them in the ass. If we want to see a change in contracts and payments, the rules need to change fundamentally. Lowering max contract length just hurts older players more and unnecessarily, continuing to give more and more power to the owners.
Click to expand...

Are they, though? Who isn't getting paid what they deserve? And while I wouldn't want to really defend the owners, I do think there is something to be said for being allowed the rights to your homegrown talent for so long. Shouldn't get punished for drafting well. Maybe they should make it easier to draw offer sheets or something. I agree with modifying RFA stuff to a degree or even lowering the UFA age a bit though.
 
So why would Ottawa and Florida not come together on this.

Would have cost Florida less and Ottawa would have received more. Terrible moves by those two.
 
KopitarFAN said:
Bruce Garrioch‏Verified account @SunGarrioch
Tallon said he spoke to Ottawa last week "but the price was too high to pay." Got a call from Sharks last night and made the deal. #Sens
Click to expand...

So if I got that call from the shark's last night I circle back to Ottawa. I think this looks worse on Ottawa than Florida. Ottawa would have known what other teams were interested.

Sens could have traded Hoffman for a 2nd. Than used that cap space to bring in Hossa's contract plus picks for lower picks. Their rebuild would be very expedited.

I think the worst three GM's in the league currently all live in Canada (Edmonton, Montreal, Ottawa)
 
kovacro said:
Senators trade Hoffman to Sharks

The Ottawa Senators have shipped forward Mike Hoffman , defenceman Cody Donaghey and a fifth-round draft pick in 2020 to the San Jose Sharks in exchange for forward Mikkel Boedker , defenceman Julius Bergman and a sixth-round draft pick in 2020.

https://www.tsn.ca/senators-trade-hoffman-to-sharks-1.1116853

His value went right down the ****ter with after what came out last week.
Click to expand...
...and San Jose picked him up for a song, creating a large amount of cap space and picks.
 
YP44 said:
So why would Ottawa and Florida not come together on this.

Would have cost Florida less and Ottawa would have received more. Terrible moves by those two.
Click to expand...

Maybe Florida didn't have an actual player they could move to Ottawa, if they were even willing to trade inside the division. The Sens have no reason to completely tank next season, assuming they keep the pick this year.
 
KINGS17 said:
...and San Jose picked him up for a song, creating a large amount of cap space and picks.
Click to expand...
Seems like a great trade for San Jose unless this d-man they traded is any good. Now San Jose has roughly $16 million in cap space depending on the cap while adding a 2nd round pick (and more) and only needing to sign RFA Hertl.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YP44
KingsFan7824 said:
Maybe Florida didn't have an actual player they could move to Ottawa, if they were even willing to trade inside the division. The Sens have no reason to completely tank next season, assuming they keep the pick this year.
Click to expand...

Boedker is worth much less than a 2nd IMO.

I like Friedman's suggestion of giving Colorado this year's pick and then focusing on rebuilding. Their #1 goalie is 37 and their only two good forwards are Duchene (1 year from FA) and Stone (RFA). Karlsson will likely be moved as it is doubtful he re-signs. This team whether they like it or not will be awful next year. I do not think this is a team purposefully tanking as much as a team that is just terrible and needs to recognize what they are and where they are.
 
YP44 said:
Boedker is worth much less than a 2nd IMO.

I like Friedman's suggestion of giving Colorado this year's pick and then focusing on rebuilding. Their #1 goalie is 37 and their only two good forwards are Duchene (1 year from FA) and Stone (RFA). Karlsson will likely be moved as it is doubtful he re-signs. This team whether they like it or not will be awful next year. I do not think this is a team purposefully tanking as much as a team that is just terrible and needs to recognize what they are and where they are.
Click to expand...
Wonder if Ottawa acquires more picks by taking on bad contracts. Orpik's $5.5 million this year could be one of them. Moulson and his $5 million contract. Paul Martin's $4.875 million (wasn't San Jose going to buy him out?). All guys expiring in 2019.

Oh, duh. And the massive haul they could get for Karlsson too.
 
If you were Karlsson would you stay in that shit show, complete with horrific memories of the death of your child and ensuing harassment? I sure as hell wouldn’t.
 
YP44 said:
Boedker is worth much less than a 2nd IMO.

I like Friedman's suggestion of giving Colorado this year's pick and then focusing on rebuilding. Their #1 goalie is 37 and their only two good forwards are Duchene (1 year from FA) and Stone (RFA). Karlsson will likely be moved as it is doubtful he re-signs. This team whether they like it or not will be awful next year. I do not think this is a team purposefully tanking as much as a team that is just terrible and needs to recognize what they are and where they are.
Click to expand...

That's the tough spot Ottawa is in. They didn't expect to be as bad as they were when they made the Duchene trade. The last time they had as bad of a record as this season was back in the mid 90's. Their choice of when to give Colorado the pick was supposed to be easier. If they're an average team this year, ok, give them the pick, and move on. Now they've got the 4th overall pick in their hand, and who knows what pick next year. Maybe they're the worst team next year, maybe they're the 12th worst team. Vegas was supposed to be bad this year, and Washington's window closed shut last year.

It's a bird in the hand situation. That's where Ottawa sits.
 
SJ needed to move cap in order to gun for Tavares after that disastrous Kane deal. I wouldn't be surprised if they probably buy out Martin too.

SJ basically needs to sign Hertl, Tierney, Thornton, and Tavares with probably around 16 mil in space, PLUS leave room for extension for Pavelski and Couture next year (1 to 2 mil increase each, they aren't getting paid the same as Kane). In my mind, they can't sign both Thornton and Tavares unless Jumbo takes the sweetheart deal. The big question is will he? I'd say the odds are likely.

edit: not too mention next year they have a ton of RFAs they need to sign as well.
 
Main board suggests Doritos Dorion refuses to even pick up the phone if it's from a team within their division. This is all so laughable.
 
LAKings88 said:
I may be in the minority but I think Karlsson stays.

Honestly, Ottawa needs him to stay.

Their owner is who needs to go.
Click to expand...


Sucks for the fans, Karlsson is that franchise. But there is no reason for him to stay. He wants $$, all elite players do but he also wants to win. And he can get both elsewhere. They should move him and Duchene (no reason for him to sign there) and move one. They aren't even close to competitive run. Get what assets you can and take on (as was already said) bad contracts for draft picks.
But you need and owner and GM who know what they're doing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LAKings88
eleventy said:
Main board suggests Doritos Dorion refuses to even pick up the phone if it's from a team within their division. This is all so laughable.
Click to expand...

I read that too. But he talked to Tallon and they didn't come to an agreement, he had to know it was possible.

Sharks and Cats come up winners. Sharks clearing CAP space and unloading a bad contract , scooping up picks. Hoffman needs to drop his excess baggage or leave it in Canada, you add him (unless he gets traded again) to Barkov, BJugstad, Huberdeau, Trocheck, Dadanov...pretty nice top 6.
 
  • Like
Reactions: King Trouty
Bandit said:
If you were Karlsson would you stay in that **** show, complete with horrific memories of the death of your child and ensuing harassment? I sure as hell wouldn’t.
Click to expand...

He might have 100 million reasons to stay, and the supposed source of the harassment is gone, I will acknowledge that the memories could be there and that would be very real.
 
Last edited:
Thats a great bit of GMing by the sharks GM. It almost seems to be a bit of an MO of his to work trades with two teams that don't want to trade with each other (Jones with us and now this one) Its a little bit sneaky mf ish. I wonder if it pisses other gms off. It would be quite amusing if the next 3way trade he organises falls through and he's left keeping an asset he doesn't want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raccoon Jesus and King Trouty
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom