NHL: Around the League 49

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
He's a good player. How would he help their tank?
Good point. I imagine they are going to flip him at the deadline for a tidy sum. on the one hand, I wish the hawks had been in on that but we want to be as bad as possible.
 

That's absurd



What an oddly structured deal on the surface. I’m sure they had their reasoning but 3 of the first 4 years of that deal his yearly cash is 13 or 13.5M. Outlier being year 2 where he “only” took home 9M.

5 more years at a 9.85M hit…. Woof. Not very good last year, and only played 3 games year prior.

Yet did that list seriously stay SJ’s contract was worse?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Giovi
Darnell Nurse tied for 3rd highest paid player.

:biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh:


Imagine having McDavid on your team and his pay for the year is the same as Darnell freakin Nurse.
The Nurse and Jones comparisons are always funny to me too. As if they’re the same low quality of player or something. Another GM caving into giving a middling talent a superstar contract. They’ll never learn.

Big LOL at the Karlsson deal too. Saw that one coming from a mile away. These GM’s can’t help themselves
 
The Nurse and Jones comparisons are always funny to me too. As if they’re the same low quality of player or something. Another GM caving into giving a middling talent a superstar contract. They’ll never learn.

Big LOL at the Karlsson deal too. Saw that one coming from a mile away. These GM’s can’t help themselves

I argued forever about Karlsson being an absolutely terrible contract the second it's signed for any team that did it. I argued with quite a few people here who wanted him signed here, also. It was a terrible idea. When a guy's biggest asset is his speed/skating, and his legs are absolutely destroyed by injuries, it didn't take rocket science to see that contract was going to be disgustingly bad for whoever paid him. Damn happy the Hawks didn't do it. Could you imagine having the Toews, Kane, Seabs, and Karlsson contracts all on the books at once? :laugh:
 
I still remember when @JaegerDice was all for giving Karlsson a big money deal despite his injuries. Whoops.

Big money but low term. I wouldnt have gone past 5 years.

My reasoning was simple. This team is going to be trash in 3 years (from his trade/ufa year) anyway due to aging curves for the core, we may as well blow our load now in a hail mary to win now. If it works, great, one more cup. If it doesnt, we were going to be shit for years post ‘dynasty run’ anyway.

8 years would have been too much for me though, cause then you’re interfering with the real-build post Kane/Toes/Keith etc. Irritatingly, they went ahead and made that mistake anyway with the Seth Jones deal.

A 5 year Karlsson deal would be ending next season, instead of just beginning.
 
Virtual venue of where the Coyotes will play next year. You can click around for different views of what it will look like from the stands.

 
I know it's a clownshoes thing, and both teams will stink, but I'm looking forward to probably paying out the wazzoo to watch a Hawks game down there this season.
I am also hitting it when the Hawks are in town (as long as I am not away for work) since I live in AZ.
 
With the exception of McD and perhaps Barkov, all of those contracts are overpayments... a few ridiculously so. It makes me just shake my head at the stupidity of some GMs.
 
3DE18495-9734-4C53-B44F-E19D7723A517.jpeg
 
Imagine still trying to defend the Hawks signing EK. He was trash from the second that contract was signed, and continues to be trash. So the Hawks would have had an additional tank commander right now, and nothing more.
As bad as the EK contract is, and as good as Jones is as a player.....I would rather have signed EK to that deal than traded what they did for Jones. Why? because neither player really matters to the Hawks.

I was in agreement that the EK contract would be terrible. The Jones trade set the Hawks back 2-3 years. Signing EK would have just accelerated the rebuild process.
 
As bad as the EK contract is, and as good as Jones is as a player.....I would rather have signed EK to that deal than traded what they did for Jones. Why? because neither player really matters to the Hawks.

I was in agreement that the EK contract would be terrible. The Jones trade set the Hawks back 2-3 years. Signing EK would have just accelerated the rebuild process.

Not a chance. I admit I wanted to sign EK to a 2-3 year deal (yeah yeah). I would much rather have Jones.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pez68
Not a chance. I admit I wanted to sign EK to a 2-3 year deal (yeah yeah). I would much rather have Jones.
Everyone would rather have Jones. What he said is that he’d prefer EK, Boqvist, the #11, and the #6 to Jones and his contract. The Jones trade was an absolute disaster. I can’t think of a worse nhl trade by a floundering team.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad