King of the ES Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 I know full well what determines the cap hit. Do you have any idea what cap reducers are? 1 - You cannot compare a "till death do us part" contract with a standard 4 to 5 year deal. Ehrhoffs contract isn't front loaded from the final few years, those are just cap reducers. Just as the final years of Lou's contract are nothing more than cap reducers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 The Sedins are going to be washed up at 34, yet you're upset MG wouldn't sign the 38 year old, injury prone, Salo to a 2 year deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 LOL @ "only" He was the second-leading goal-scorer on our team, at 21 years old and playing very sparsely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 The "promised ice time" thing is a joke. If he sucks, he's not going to play, period. As for replacing players, in 2 years, Danny & Hank will be 34. Their offense will be nearly impossible to replace. Trading Cody certainly doesn't help with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeBossy Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Not only is "hits" a totally unreliable statistic, you're saying that Garrison's more valuable because he hits more frequently? I guess that means that you'd rather have Andrew Alberts than Erik Karlsson, too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AK_19 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 A lot. This place was laughing at Calgary incessantly at signing that contract, even though Wideman's career has been far more productive. And yes, he's older - a whole year. That's it. So if you think that Garrison is such a great signing, I'm just hoping that you think that Wideman was, as well. Uh-huh, and if this post was made in 2010, you could just substitute "Ballard" for "Garrison", and it'd be the same message. You're betting on continued growth, and you have no idea how risky it is. Great, EOTM, Garrison's just going to keep ascending and ascending and ascending, until he wins a Norris, right? We will see. I look forward to asking you about Garrison this year if there's hockey, and if/when he struggles. Better start conjuring up some clever excuses, pal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 So you'd be fine with signing him instead of Garrison to the contract he got even though he's proven nothing at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 1. Yeah, because of his cap hit of 5.5 mil. I'd laugh at the Garrison signing too if the cap hit was that, however, it wasn't so really this is an irrelevant point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AK_19 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Wideman's cap hit is $5.25. And comparing his career to Garrison's, the small difference of $600K is completely justified. In fact, it makes Wideman look like a relative bargain. In addition, his contract is for only 5 years, unlike the 6 that we're married to Garrison to. I disagree - that's PRECISELY what got him signed. The guy had 16 goals last season! Very impressive, but very low odds that he can or will keep it up - part of the basis for my assertion that this was not a wise signing. If you acknowledge that his point totals were likely inflated last year - and, they were only 33, far less than anything we got from Ehrhoff - how can you possibly think that this was a good signing? The "advanced stats" are crap. I don't imagine that they're used by any GMs to make any sort of investment decision. Hockey is not 1-on-1 like baseball is. There's not a Bill James on the horizon for hockey, that will revolutionize the way we analyze what's going on during a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Yes, because his upside is far greater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerbera Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Wideman's cap hit is $5.25. And comparing his career to Garrison's, the small difference of $600K is completely justified. In fact, it makes Wideman look like a relative bargain. In addition, his contract is for only 5 years, unlike the 6 that we're married to Garrison to. I disagree - that's PRECISELY what got him signed. The guy had 16 goals last season! Very impressive, but very low odds that he can or will keep it up - part of the basis for my assertion that this was not a wise signing. If you acknowledge that his point totals were likely inflated last year - and, they were only 33, far less than anything we got from Ehrhoff - how can you possibly think that this was a good signing? The "advanced stats" are crap. I don't imagine that they're used by any GMs to make any sort of investment decision. Hockey is not 1-on-1 like baseball is. There's not a Bill James on the horizon for hockey, that will revolutionize the way we analyze what's going on during a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Salo's a 4/5 defenceman, not our top line, perennial All-Star/Art Ross candidates. Impact of a decline in the Sedins' game is slightly/extremely higher, as I hope that you would acknowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ossi Vaananen Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 It's King's thing to beat a dead horse. Yes - a 38 y/o Salo with a 2 year deal is gone, a young Hodgson who was impatient with lack of play time in his first season is gone, Erhoff left and was too greedy for even Garth Snow, Torres is serving a 25 game suspension, and somehow Gillis becomes a bad GM for making very rational choices. Need I remind you of our previous GM in Dave Nonis, who's big off season signing was Brad Isbister and the shocking deadline pick up of Matt Pettinger. I think we're better off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Why do you think he got signed just for his offensive capabilities? I personally think he hits just 30 points with less goals and more assists. Personally it seems quite obvious to me its for his elite defensive abilities since he's been used as such by Florida. You won't believe me because you don't believe in advanced statistics and you already admitted you've barely even heard of him so you clearly don't watch him either. $4.5 mill at a 70 mil cap is really not that much. We're looking at the deal only taking up 6.5 %. In comparison, Dan Hamhuis was signed to a deal that took up 7.5% of the cap when he signed his contract and he is the player on our team most similar to him. By your reasoning he was a terrible signing too since he avged less than 30 points a season too before signing here. Most people on this board would say he's been our best dman for the past two seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I seriously don't see how you can say we should sign a player for 10 years and then say how signing another player for 6 years is bad. I seriously don't see how Wideman's numbers in the past should justify him to a 5+ mil contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I hate to break it to you, but last season Salo was paired with Edler as the top offensive pairing. Or top 4 if you prefer. Had he re-signed he would have been bottom pairing with Ballard this season. it baffles me you're upset the 38 year old injury Salo wasn't re-signed and a 27 year old Garrison, who scored more goals last season than Salo has ever scored in a single season in his entire career, was signed. And it's not like Gillis chose one over the other. He actually did try to retain Salo offering to sign him to one year deals as long as he wanted to play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Erhoff left and was too greedy for even Garth Snow, Torres is serving a 25 game suspension, and somehow Gillis becomes a bad GM for making very rational choices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike62 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 It shouldn't be too baffling, because signing Salo would've involved a lot less commitment risk at 2 years and a lower cap hit. And Garrison is 28, by the way. Pretty old to have only played 190 career NHL games, I would say. I don't have a crystal ball either, but I do have the ability to perform middle-school mathematical calculations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Yet you still ignore the possibility (probability?) of Salo being injured and Canucks being stuck with his cap hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 He can still go on LTIR, and that's still far less impactful than the risk of Jason Garrison just not being that good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.