- May 8, 2010
- 21,720
- 38,288
Clarke sent down according to capfriendly
Timo prob playing Friday
This was shared yesterday. Not sure what it entails, but yeah.
Clarke sent down according to capfriendly
Timo prob playing Friday
Speaking of next year’s goalies, what are the chances Blackwood is back?
He’s actually got a reasonable QO and probably has created some trade value this year.
I don’t hate the idea of going into camp with him, Schmid and Vanecek battling for the two spots. If Schmid wins a spot, trade one of the other two.
So with Larkin signing yesterday and Pasta today, are we next with Bratt/Meier?
they addressed yesterday as a paper transaction, i believe
I dunno. We're not at the roster limit, are we? Do we just not want to pay the guy?I saw that yesterday, though I can't fathom what sending him down on a paper transaction would actually accomplish since we're not accumulating any cap space with Bernier on LTIR.
In this case, I don't think it should even be a thing at all. The context of a deal differs from year to year and the cap is a dynamic system reacting to forces beyond even ownership's control.I 100% agree and I’m pretty sure Fitz agrees too. But what’s been posted above is different then saying “I absolutely won’t sign anyone above 8”. Fitz will pitch the idea, because he believes in it, but it won’t stop him from signing Bratt or Meier over 8 mil per. When it’s all said and done, I think we’re getting both of them between 8.5-9 mil long-term.
When it was discussed here, it was discussed as a “line in the sand/I won’t budge” type of thing. It really isn’t.
I mean, I agree lol, reading the tweets, the first thing that popped in my mind was, “doesn’t every GM in some ways push a team friendly deal/discount?” It’s a pretty common thing and of course that’s what GM’s want, it just doesn’t always happens. As you said, sometimes it does, but more often than not it doesn’t and GM’s adapt and offer/settle on a higher/normal deal.In this case, I don't think it should even be a thing at all. The context of a deal differs from year to year and the cap is a dynamic system reacting to forces beyond even ownership's control.
Success sells itself, treating people well sells itself. But leaning on a good faith deal as a benchmark is not the same as pointing to Brodeur, Bergeron or Lidstrom taking a discount, and it's dumb that it's even a discussion. I'd argue it's worse for the group to show such faith in potential from some players and then refuse to reward actual results from others.
Ruff said either yesterday or todayWasn't there supposed to an update on Timo last night after the game saying whether he would be cleared for contact?
Wasn't there supposed to an update on Timo last night after the game saying whether he would be cleared for contact?
He said they’d know if he was cleared for contact yesterday or today. Wouldn’t be surprised if we found out his status after practice today.Ruff said either yesterday or today
Probably find out tomorrow
Don't we have the day off today? No practice?He said they’d know if he was cleared for contact yesterday or today. Wouldn’t be surprised if we found out his status after practice today.
Don't we have the day off today? No practice?
I'd imagine they are practicing today since they already had a 3 day break between games this week, but who knows
I’ll also post this here, it gives additional context to the rumours that they don’t want to pay anyone more than Jack. Feel like that has been overlooked by her initial tweet, that made it sound like it was a hard stance, when it in fact really isn’t. It’s a preference that will get pitched, but it’s not a “line in the sand” type of thing.
I mean, I agree, it’s a whole bunch of nothing. It’s basically: “GM pitches a discount/team-friendly deal to player for the future, but if the player doesn’t want to, GM will sign him to a contract both sides agree on”.This is so funny. If I was Bratt (or his agent) I’d say “Fitz, I played here cheap when we stunk so pay me big now and just pretend the two scenarios are reversed.”
That's Fitz's M.O.if we make a move, i want it to be an off-the-board guy that we'll be pleasantly surprised about
Don't we have the day off today? No practice?