News Article: Delete

[danielpalfredsson]

The two players we need to resign that count against next seasons cap are Ceci and Stone,the other two in Duchene and EK count against the following ...We will have more than enough room to resign everyone,ditto money

Yeah, but Duchene+EK are relevant because they can be extended starting July 1st 2018, meaning even if their extensions don't kick in, the team has to consider moving them to recoup assets if they cannot both re-sign them and find a way to fit them in under our player salary budget in time for those extensions to kick in during the 19-20 season.

I also strongly disagree with your assessment that we can fit everybody in. Our player salary budget has remained at 68M for at least the previous two seasons despite the salary cap going up during that time, and our owner has made it known that because we operate with everything slashed to the bone everywhere else, the player salary budget will be the next thing to be lowered.

In 19-20, if our budget remains the same as it has the past few seasons, we have 33.55 available to spend on 12 players. Those 12 players include Karlsson, Duchene, and Stone who are our stars. Even if they all take the lower end of what would be expected, which won't happen, but I'll use those numbers as they only further cement the point, that would be Karlsson at 10.5, Stone and Duchene both at 7. That leaves us with about 9 million to sign 8 more roster players including Dzingel, Ceci, and White. If Karlsson/Stone/Duchene sign for a more realistic combined salary of about 28 million, that leaves us with 5.55 million to sign 8 more roster players including those mentioned above.

We could go on and trade or refuse to re-sign everybody making money who is actually movable (aka not Ryan+Gaborik) except for Karl+Duchene+Stone, but I don't think that's a viable strategy. People complained about Johnny Oduya playing the minutes he did, that's the type of performances we'd have all over the top end of our line up if we went with that strategy.

 

[aragorn]

If dahlin is picked (luck) then trade Ceci keep karl

Why? I hear Ceci's name mentioned all the time in broadcasts breaking up play after play defensively. He certainly makes mistakes but he is 23 yrs old & plays more minutes than Karlsson sometimes. That would leave a huge hole on defence, a position we are constantly hearing that takes longer to learn so no young prospect is going to be as good & could easily be the new goat on here.

Whoever created the term gaslighting really has a knack for creating words.

No matter what you type or how many coherent arguments you make, certain posters just won't listen. They have their alternate reality, and that's that. No point even trying to argue with insanity.

This could be said for either side of any argument. Nothing is clear cut, right or wrong, both sides can easily have valid arguments to support their side. Have you ever been on a debate team where you are asked to argue one side of an argument & then asked to argue the other side given some understandings? That's the way life is ... messy & not everything is clearly defined one way or the other. It's not always right or wrong, left or right, there are lots of grey areas that can go either way.

I think the player expenditures concerns are secondary to scouting and internal team expenditures, but it's not like there's no evidence to support this theory. Turris was moved for contract issues. Zibanejad was moved for a more cost-controlled asset. We've bought draft picks and accepted to send a draft pick in exchange for salary retention. The cheap owner finds ways to cut costs that are not in the best interests of the team's asset management.

While I agree to some extent we also know that every team lives within a budget & a good case must be made to exceed the budget. Zibanejad may also have been moved because he never turned into the #1 centre they thought they drafted & needed more of a playoff warrior which Brassard proved he was. It may have cost more but playoff warriors should cost more than regular season stars.

Turris may have been moved because management thought they had an opportunity to acquire a better player even though again it would cost them more assets. Better players usually cost more assets & that could be an argument that they overpaid to get the better player. It could also be that PD made the best deals he could to acquire who they thought were the better players that would improve their hockey team & paid the assets needed to stay within budget.

We may not like it but the GM does have restraints he has to work within. As does the owner who looks like he is trying to not lose a ton of money on a losing hockey team with attendance issues. Nor defending the organization but it must be quite complicated to work within these parameters & frustrating not having a larger budget or being able to spend to the cap every yr. They could be doing the best they can under difficult conditions & diminishing attendance when increasing attendance is needed to pay the bills.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

And each time they re-signed a "core" player, the people who speculated that said player(s) were going to be traded, because the "cheap owner" was not going to pay up for those "core" players.

when was this?when did this actually happen.. its an absolute myth. I mean recently... we resigned cody ceci (lots didn't even want him resigned so not many were crying that we were gonna trade him)

NO ONE doubted stone would get an extension out of his ELC. Hoffman there were doubts whether we SHOULD sign him not that we wouldn't for the most part.... and now we are trying to trade him lol for cheaper option.

 

[topshelf15]

Yeah, but Duchene+EK are relevant because they can be extended starting July 1st 2018, meaning even if their extensions don't kick in, the team has to consider moving them to recoup assets if they cannot both re-sign them and find a way to fit them in under our player salary budget in time for those extensions to kick in during the 19-20 season.

I also strongly disagree with your assessment that we can fit everybody in. Our player salary budget has remained at 68M for at least the previous two seasons despite the salary cap going up during that time, and our owner has made it known that because we operate with everything slashed to the bone everywhere else, the player salary budget will be the next thing to be lowered.

In 19-20, if our budget remains the same as it has the past few seasons, we have 33.55 available to spend on 12 players. Those 12 players include Karlsson, Duchene, and Stone who are our stars. Even if they all take the lower end of what would be expected, which won't happen, but I'll use those numbers as they only further cement the point, that would be Karlsson at 10.5, Stone and Duchene both at 7. That leaves us with about 9 million to sign 8 more roster players including Dzingel, Ceci, and White. If Karlsson/Stone/Duchene sign for a more realistic combined salary of about 28 million, that leaves us with 5.55 million to sign 8 more roster players including those mentioned above.

We could go on and trade or refuse to re-sign everybody making money who is actually movable (aka not Ryan+Gaborik) except for Karl+Duchene+Stone, but I don't think that's a viable strategy. People complained about Johnny Oduya playing the minutes he did, that's the type of performances we'd have all over the top end of our line up if we went with that strategy.

That is what i meant by EM has to forgo the player salary budget,and spend to the cap while we sort out the dead money...There is really no other option,us trading away assets to gain cap will just give EK more reasons not to want to resign,ditto Duchene ...

EM cant hope for team friendly contracts,nor can he use the budget excuse anymore...He has fished both lakes dry

 

[Dino Tkachuk]

when was this?when did this actually happen.. its an absolute myth. I mean recently... we resigned cody ceci (lots didn't even want him resigned so not many were crying that we were gonna trade him)

NO ONE doubted stone would get an extension out of his ELC. Hoffman there were doubts whether we SHOULD sign him not that we wouldn't for the most part.... and now we are trying to trade him lol for cheaper option.

Lots of angst over whether Ryan would sign. Lots of debate over Hoffman as well and not all of it was SHOULD we sign him.

 

[YouGotAStuGoing]

While I agree to some extent we also know that every team lives within a budget & a good case must be made to exceed the budget. Zibanejad may also have been moved because he never turned into the #1 centre they thought they drafted & needed more of a playoff warrior which Brassard proved he was. It may have cost more but playoff warriors should cost more than regular season stars.

Turris may have been moved because management thought they had an opportunity to acquire a better player even though again it would cost them more assets. Better players usually cost more assets & that could be an argument that they overpaid to get the better player. It could also be that PD made the best deals he could to acquire who they thought were the better players that would improve their hockey team & paid the assets needed to stay within budget.

We may not like it but the GM does have restraints he has to work within. As does the owner who looks like he is trying to not lose a ton of money on a losing hockey team with attendance issues. Nor defending the organization but it must be quite complicated to work within these parameters & frustrating not having a larger budget or being able to spend to the cap every yr. They could be doing the best they can under difficult conditions & diminishing attendance when increasing attendance is needed to pay the bills.

You make a very good point here. There are other factors in play, for sure. I understood most of the deals at the time they were made, and there was typically a reasonable argument to be made even for the ones I didn't wholly understand. It's why I tend not to put much blame on Dorion – I think he's doing the best he can with the hand he's been dealt. Creativity matters so much more when you're hamstrung for resources.

The only part I take issue with is your last paragraph. The owner's losses are somewhat self-inflicted. The Phoenix situation and the geography and the thousand other reasons that have been hashed and re-hashed to death around here. But I find it hard to sympathize with a guy who's fighting with his budget when it seems like every other public appearance results in more fans feeling pushed away. I sympathize with Dorion. Not with Melnyk.

 

[Ice-Tray]

I think the player expenditures concerns are secondary to scouting and internal team expenditures, but it's not like there's no evidence to support this theory. Turris was moved for contract issues. Zibanejad was moved for a more cost-controlled asset. We've bought draft picks and accepted to send a draft pick in exchange for salary retention. The cheap owner finds ways to cut costs that are not in the best interests of the team's asset management.

I disagree. Turris and Zib were moved not because we couldn't afford them, but because it was contract time and PD didn't want to invest the big dollars on term to these specific players. Turris was straight up traded for a better player that PD DOES want to spend big money and term on.

Zib wasn't moved for a cost controlled asset, that's HF budget speak. He was move because we didn't want him long term as a significant core piece, and Brassard was a nice piece that would work better in the short term, and give us more time to decide in the long term. In the end we parlayed that trade into an awesome playoff run, beating Zibs team on the way, and now our top goalie prospect and a first this season.

The staffing issues I agree with, but we really need to separate where we are cutting costs, and where we are making hockey decisions. Personally I'm stoked that we didn't go big money and long term on Zib especially, and Turris as well. Neither of those guys are core players.

 

[Ice-Tray]

Well, I guess if you assume we didn't want to keep Zibanejad or Turris, then sure. Both guys due for big raises, both traded. If we trade Karlsson or Hoffman this offseason, will it be because we didn't want to keep them?

I don't have to assume, we traded Turris for a guy that is better, and that will command more money than Turris, it wasn't exactly a cost saving measure now was it.

Look, it comes down to who do you want to spend your big contracts on. People here complain non stop about Ryan, P9, etc... But are also super critical when PD makes decisions NOT to sign guys long term to big money.

I think most folks around here are glad that we don't have Zib and Turris signed to big money deals for long term. I know I'd take Duchene over both players without question, and I'd take the cap flexibility, the goalie prospect, and the first over having Zib's contract on the books as well.

Of course it will be because we don't want to keep them. You can keep pushing the bar every year until you get a result that suits you, but if you look back, we have signed everyone we have wanted to sign. EK won't be traded because we can't afford him, it will be about whether it's smart to spend 12 million on one player, and it's a valid concern. As for Hoffman, I also question spending big money on a guy that plays as lazy and disinterested as he does. We can afford him, but do we want to keep him?

When you look at everything through a lens of EM hate and everything is done to cut contracts, that's all you see. There is no reason for us to be a cap team right now, some of our best assets are just coming into the team. There will be complaining now about the cap space we have, and complaining if we used it up and have no space to sign our core guys.

Personally I don't think I have to prove the point since history have shown us signing everyone, it's your position that lacks evidence.

 

[tony d]

Hope this happens. I think he's going to stay. 8 yrs. at 10.5 million per is what I'd give him.

 

[Micklebot]

I don't have to assume, we traded Turris for a guy that is better, and that will command more money than Turris, it wasn't exactly a cost saving measure now was it.

Look, it comes down to who do you want to spend your big contracts on. People here complain non stop about Ryan, P9, etc... But are also super critical when PD makes decisions NOT to sign guys long term to big money.

I think most folks around here are glad that we don't have Zib and Turris signed to big money deals for long term. I know I'd take Duchene over both players without question, and I'd take the cap flexibility, the goalie prospect, and the first over having Zib's contract on the books as well.

Of course it will be because we don't want to keep them. You can keep pushing the bar every year until you get a result that suits you, but if you look back, we have signed everyone we have wanted to sign. EK won't be traded because we can't afford him, it will be about whether it's smart to spend 12 million on one player, and it's a valid concern. As for Hoffman, I also question spending big money on a guy that plays as lazy and disinterested as he does. We can afford him, but do we want to keep him?

When you look at everything through a lens of EM hate and everything is done to cut contracts, that's all you see. There is no reason for us to be a cap team right now, some of our best assets are just coming into the team. There will be complaining now about the cap space we have, and complaining if we used it up and have no space to sign our core guys.

Personally I don't think I have to prove the point since history have shown us signing everyone, it's your position that lacks evidence.

Except that your position is literally the assumption that we traded guys we did because of one reason rather than another and you use that as proof that we won't trade guys for the reason you've assumed wasn't the reason for past trades. You made the statement of "fact", not me, all I did was point out that your "fact" is actually an assumption. It's neither wrong, nor right at least that we can prove, but it is certainly not a fact as you presented it. Call out others for viewing things through a tinted lens if you like, but don't try to act as though you aren't doing the same.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

Lots of angst over whether Ryan would sign. Lots of debate over Hoffman as well and not all of it was SHOULD we sign him.

I don't remember there being any doubt over the ryan signing. it was all "if we trade him we look bad" that seems to be this org.. mentally handcuffing themselves to bad contracts or letting decent players walk for not much.

 

[Ice-Tray]

Except that your position is literally the assumption that we traded guys we did because of one reason rather than another and you use that as proof that we won't trade guys for the reason you've assumed wasn't the reason for past trades. You made the statement of "fact", not me, all I did was point out that your "fact" is actually an assumption. It's neither wrong, nor right at least that we can prove, but it is certainly not a fact as you presented it. Call out others for viewing things through a tinted lens if you like, but don't try to act as though you aren't doing the same.

Actually, my main point has been that we have signed all of our core players to contracts that we have wanted to keep, and used that as proof that we shouldn't assume that we can't afford our guys this year just because.

Please try and stick to the main point I'm making if you're taking time to respond.

 

[Ice-Tray]

I don't remember there being any doubt over the ryan signing. it was all "if we trade him we look bad" that seems to be this org.. mentally handcuffing themselves to bad contracts or letting decent players walk for not much.

That's because you're confusing fan and organizational responses. There was lots of fear around here as always, and next to no public information from management. "Trade him and we look bad" was 100% HF created, and likely not a consideration given that PD seems to favour hockey moves rather than fan driven fear moves.

 

[Micklebot]

I don't remember there being any doubt over the ryan signing. it was all "if we trade him we look bad" that seems to be this org.. mentally handcuffing themselves to bad contracts or letting decent players walk for not much.

I recall lots of other teams fans thinking we'd be too cheap to sign him. Surely there were some Sens fans who thought there might be some issues too, though I don't recall us having too much of a budget crunch at the time. He ended up getting an extra 1.75 a year from what we had been paying him on average, back loaded though. His raise wasn't actually that big; to put it in perspective, Pageau just got a bigger raise.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

That's because you're confusing fan and organizational responses. There was lots of fear around here as always, and next to no public information from management. "Trade him and we look bad" was 100% HF created, and likely not a consideration given that PD seems to favour hockey moves rather than fan driven fear moves.

Murray was our GM when we had ryan.

 

[Micklebot]

Actually, my main point has been that we have signed all of our core players to contracts that we have wanted to keep, and used that as proof that we shouldn't assume that we can't afford our guys this year just because.

Please try and stick to the main point I'm making if you're taking time to respond.

Except you defined who we wanted to keep. Are you Dorion or the ghost of B.Murr? No? great, glad we can agree that your main point is not a fact, and purely an assumption.

 

[Ice-Tray]

Murray was our GM when we had ryan.

Dude!!! That was very undude of you....

 

[Ice-Tray]

Except you defined who we wanted to keep. Are you Dorion or the ghost of B.Murr? No? great, glad we can agree that your main point is not a fact, and purely an assumption.

Ugh. Clearly, even for you, PD chose who we wanted to keep, who we didn't want to keep, and why.

I'm glad to hear how highly you think of me, but I can assure you that I had no say in who stayed and who left. I know you were trying to sound clever, but it was lukewarm dude, you're slipping.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

Then who plays the second most minutes (after EK65) like Ceci has done for the past three seasons?

In a perfect world we keep both, I'm just willing to cut bait if it ends up being the difference in whether or not we can afford Karlsson since he's the more important of the two hands down. I choose Karlsson over Ceci a hundred times out of a hundred, even at more than double his salary.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

We dont need to move anybody for us to resign EK..We just need an owner that is ready to spend a little now to gain later

Oh I agree, but in Sens reality that's not happening, so I'm just working with what we got rather than beating a dead horse. If we do pony up for Karl this summer, then I think the reality of that is probably not giving Ceci a big contract too.

 

[Handles1919]

Ugh. Clearly, even for you, PD chose who we wanted to keep, who we didn't want to keep, and why.

I'm glad to hear how highly you think of me, but I can assure you that I had no say in who stayed and who left. I know you were trying to sound clever, but it was lukewarm dude, you're slipping.

everything you say is trying to sound clever or superior and it always misse.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

Dude!!! That was very undude of you....

facts broseph

 

[Ice-Tray]

Oh I agree, but in Sens reality that's not happening, so I'm just working with what we got rather than beating a dead horse. If we do pony up for Karl this summer, then I think the reality of that is probably not giving Ceci a big contract too.

Do you think we should give Ceci a big contract though? Man, I'm really on the fence about him. I like him somewhat, but I don't think he's a good value for like 5 million at this point.

Tough decisions ahead for sure.

 

[Ice-Tray]

everything you say is trying to sound clever or superior and it always misse.

Dude, you're not in a position to judge my cleverness, this post was a waste of your time.

 

[Ice-Tray]

facts broseph

ARRGGG! Facts! Ah BMurr, RIP.