Tribute Jack Campbell Discussion

[hotpaws]

I don’t think too many have necessarily missed you, well not me at least. Sorry for your family’s loss. Holidays are tough for us too because of similar circumstances. Just found it funny the time you do have is to poopoo on something as opposed to maybe finding some good in the world. I mean the teams only top 5 overall right now.

poo pooing on what exactly ?

the discussion is about Campbell and i believe he'd be hard to replace , how is that shitting on anything ?

 

[hotpaws]

None of Mrazek Holl Dermott or Kerfoot would require any retention or sweeteners and all would bring back draft capital in the summer. Ritchie might require a sweetener or he can be ballast for an upgrade. There’s no cap issue in the summer.

no one's giving up value for Mzarek unless he starts to perform better/stays healthy and as of right now we'd have to pay to trade him

Kerfoot's played better but other teams realize he's the 3rd wheel on that line and with tight caps i don't see teams offering up much even if they believe he has some value . Also lets be honest , he's still only on pace for low teens in goals playing with JT/Willie .

Dermott/Holl haven't had good season but there fairly cheap so someone may offer a mid rd pick but then we'd still have to replace them so the savings won't amount to much .

and my point isn't that we can't stay under the cap but that we need to improve the team which is hard to do when we have to keep adding league min players every time we give a player a raise

 

[ToneDog]

no one's giving up value for Mzarek unless he starts to perform better/stays healthy and as of right now we'd have to pay to trade him

Kerfoot's played better but other teams realize he's the 3rd wheel on that line and with tight caps i don't see teams offering up much even if they believe he has some value . Also lets be honest , he's still only on pace for low teens in goals playing with JT/Willie .

Dermott/Holl haven't had good season but there fairly cheap so someone may offer a mid rd pick but then we'd still have to replace them so the savings won't amount to much .

and my point isn't that we can't stay under the cap but that we need to improve the team which is hard to do when we have to keep adding league min players every time we give a player a raise

Have no fear, the calvary led by Amirov and Robertson is on the way. It would make Dubas' life a lot easier if one could stick soon. Will be interesting to see how Schnieder looks tonight (if he plays) and Mercer when we play the Devils. Amirov has some catching up to do.

 

[Gary Nylund]

All the noise pointed to a Campbell led tandem. That strongly implies he was seen as >=Mrazek, otherwise it would have been a Mrazek lead tandem. In any case, pointing to the lack of a ~3.8 million dollar deal as if it's something the team turned down is nonsense.

And I've shown you the math to why a savvy agent would turn it down and have far higher expectations based on the market and expected value than many here are giving credit. When you've made 6m, turning down 12-16 for a shot at 25-30 where the only real downside is your career ending is not a big a leap, and is the mathematically prudent course

Like I said, it's possible they couldn't agree on term. I remember your math, it was reasonable (though there's a bit more to it than just math) and it's quite possible that Campbell felt like gambling on him having a good season as you're speculating. If that's the case then Dubas had the option of also agreeing that Campbell was likely to do well and signing him to a contract that would have been a bit more costly then he would have liked, but less then we're looking at now. He decided not to do so and today no doubt wishes that he did. If we sign him and he ends up costing us say 1-15 million a year more and maybe one more year of term, that's not too bad. If however he makes it to free agency and ends up being even more costly to resign him and perhaps even so much that we decide it's just too much to pay, that would be a really bad outcome. It that happens and he plays like a top 5-10 goalie over the next 5 years while our goaltending is well below that level and our playoff failures pile up as more prime years our "elite" core keep getting wasted, then the decision to not meet his demands will go down in history as a very costly one.

I'll admit it, I'm probably a bit biased here because I just love the guy. It took a while but by the time the playoffs started I was confident with him in net and by the time the playoffs ended that confidence had grown even more. I view him as the most important player on the team, it's impossible to understate the value of a solid #1 goalie, I was willing to bet on him being that guy and that's why I said extending him was my #1 priority, yes even ahead of extending Rielly. Maybe he'll falter and I'll look like an idiot a few years from now and I don't often make predictions of any kind but I would have moved heaven and earth to get him extended in the summer and I think it was a big mistake not to do so.

Based on draft pedigree and previous performance he would get backup, or even 1B, money regardless of how he performed this season. Since this deal is likely the last chance to cash in, it was smart to gamble on himself rather than take the first deal offer ended. Basically, outside of a career ending injury, going into the season unsigned was low risk high reward.

That's true, it just becomes a question of how much risk you're willing to tolerate. A career ending injury is unlikely, but if it happens it's pretty damn costly. If it's say take 15 million now or risk it all hoping to get 30, I'm sure there are many, many people would would take the 15 million, me among them. That's more than enough money to be set for life, why the hell would I risk that? Anyhow that's me, I'm sure many people would do the same but many others would gamble but there's no right or wrong here and I don't see it as a "pure math" question.

You're correct that we'll never know for certain what goes on behind the scenes, but that doesn't seem to stop people from making bad assumptions in order to blame Dubas. The safe assumption is that Dubas offered Campbell a reasonable deal, and Campbell looked at the risk/reward ratio and opted to bet on himself in a good situation. Nobody is to blame for that.

Campbell's value to the team this year was high, regardless of what the future holds.

If that's what happened then it's also safe to assume that Dubas could have signed him had be willing to pay more and he probably wishes he had done so because whatever the cost was, it's a lot higher today.

if we can get him signed around the 5ish number... we gotta get that done asap

Agreed. I'd do 5x6 or 6x5 today without hesitation.

None of Mrazek Holl Dermott or Kerfoot would require any retention or sweeteners and all would bring back draft capital in the summer. Ritchie might require a sweetener or he can be ballast for an upgrade. There’s no cap issue in the summer.

Agree almost 100%. Mrazek needs to play though and he needs to play at a decent level. He has a solid track record so there is every reason to believe he will play well but there's always the chance he doesn't and if he gets say 12 starts, that's not a huge number, anyone can have a slump, it's always hard to come in cold anyway and if he sucks for those 12 starts, finding a taker for him might not be so easy. Other than that yeah, especially Kerfoot, he's a very good player and the very idea of a sweetener being needed to move him is absurd.

 

[Dekes For Days]

considering it's been 5 straight 1st rd exists with you praising the team after each season it's pretty safe to say you couldn't give a damn how this team performs

Of course I care how the team performs. I just also recognize that there's more to discussions about teams than their past contextless playoff outcomes. I also haven't even been on this site for 5 years lol. Maybe stick to the thread topic instead of making inaccurate comments about me.

who these expendable players who we don't have to pay to trade are

It's unlikely we'd have to "pay" to trade anybody on our team, if it came to that.

 

[Nylanderthal]

no one's giving up value for Mzarek unless he starts to perform better/stays healthy and as of right now we'd have to pay to trade him

Kerfoot's played better but other teams realize he's the 3rd wheel on that line and with tight caps i don't see teams offering up much even if they believe he has some value . Also lets be honest , he's still only on pace for low teens in goals playing with JT/Willie .

Dermott/Holl haven't had good season but there fairly cheap so someone may offer a mid rd pick but then we'd still have to replace them so the savings won't amount to much .

and my point isn't that we can't stay under the cap but that we need to improve the team which is hard to do when we have to keep adding league min players every time we give a player a raise

Crazy that the teams top 5 with all those holes and players with no value in the line up. As of now no we wouldn’t have to pay to move mrazek. GM’s don’t dismiss a decade of performance because he’s had a groin issue here.

 

[Confucius]

Why did Carolina trade Ned to Detroit after a Calder nomination season? Teams make moves that are in line with their team timeline. Mrazek was an upcoming FA they sent him to philly for a 3 & 4th that could’ve been a 2 & 3rd based on performance. At the time detroit was 7 points back of a playoff spot and going to miss.
I’m not entirely sure what the point is you were trying to make?

The bigger question is why didn't anyone claim him? And we thought we got a break when nobody claimed Spezza.

Anton Forsberg claimed off waivers / Alex Nedeljkovic placed on waivers | Canes & Coffee (canesandcoffee.com)

The Canes placed Nedeljkovic on NHL waivers — he went unclaimed — in order to be placed on the team's taxi squad. Called up, he played 23 games, going 15-5-3 with a 1.90 goals-against average and a . 932 save percentage, with three shutouts, as the Canes won the Central Division. That's called getting it done.

 

[Dekes For Days]

If that's what happened then it's also safe to assume that Dubas could have signed him had be willing to pay more

We have no way to know that, we have no idea what price would have been necessary if it was even an option, and you're not thinking of the potential consequences of an action like that, though I have to say I do find it quite amusing that the arguments against Dubas are now that he's not overpaying enough.

 

[Confucius]

We have no way to know that, we have no idea what price would have been necessary if it was even an option, and you're not thinking of the potential consequences of an action like that, though I have to say I do find it quite amusing that the arguments against Dubas are now that he's not overpaying enough.

its more like Dubas continues to put himself in a position where he has to overpay. When you wait too long it is your fault for not having the balls to make a decision before it becomes a captain obvious decision.

And yes if he guesses wrong it is on him, thats why he gets the big bucks to make the right decision on who gets paid.

 

[Dekes For Days]

its more like Dubas continues to put himself in a position where he has to overpay. When you wait too long iy is your fault

...What are you even talking about? The hypothetical being discussed is Dubas overpaying beyond a reasonable deal last offseason - which was his first opportunity to extend him.

 

[Confucius]

...What are you even talking about? The hypothetical being discussed is Dubas overpaying beyond a reasonable deal last offseason - which was his first opportunity to extend him.

That would be correct and nothing happened

 

[Dekes For Days]

That would be correct and nothing happened

Again, what are you talking about?

The discussion was about last offseason. In this scenario, Dubas didn't "wait too long", or put himself in any "position". It would have been his first opportunity to extend Campbell, according to NHL rules. The suggestion, given a scenario where Campbell was willing to sign but unwilling to sign a reasonable deal, was that Dubas could have just overpaid beyond a reasonable deal.

I pointed out the irony of a GM who is often improperly blamed for overpaying, suddenly being blamed for not overpaying in this hypothetical scenario.

 

[Gary Nylund]

We have no way to know that, we have no idea what price would have been necessary if it was even an option, and you're not thinking of the potential consequences of an action like that, though I have to say I do find it quite amusing that the arguments against Dubas are now that he's not overpaying enough.

I never said we "knew" anything, I used the words "safe to assume". In your post that I quoted, you used the phrase "safe assumption", now it's like you don't even know the meaning of the word. I'm amused.

I'm also pretty sure nobody has ever complained about Dubas "not overpaying enough". To borrow a favorite phrase of yours - please stop making up lies.

 

[Dekes For Days]

I'm also pretty sure nobody has ever complained about Dubas "not overpaying enough".

Your argument in this hypothetical being discussed was literally that Dubas should have overpaid beyond a reasonable deal when a reasonable deal was not accepted.

 

[Nylanderthal]

If Dubas handed soup 5x5 in the past offeseason people would be wondering why he did that and not sign gru instead.

 

[Lemontree]

He’s quickly regressing back his normal NHL performance.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Your argument in this hypothetical being discussed was literally that Dubas should have overpaid beyond a reasonable deal when a reasonable deal was not accepted.

Nobody has ever criticized Dubas for "not overpaying enough". An normal person would say oops, I misspoke and retract the statement. But you be you.

At least you're not going on about "assuming anymore", I guess even you couldn't find a way to spin your way out of that one.

 

[leafsfan5]

He'll be fine, just in a bit of a slump right now. Can't expect .930+ all year long

I'd give Mrazek more starts for the next little bit