[Signing] Turris signs with NSH for 6 years 6 mil AAV

[combover]

45 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

No it doesn't. Oh right you have magical hindsight at your disposal. 

It was a bad signing (for this team) then it’s even worse now. Hindsight isn’t needed.as for  Magical hindsight well I think I’d use it for more personal gains.

He was 30+ on a rebuilding retooling transitional team whatever spin you want to believe signed to a 6 year deal.. some gms have no self control when UFAs come up spender jim is one of them.didnt the team say they were getting younger and trading away all the older vets. 

Turis at 6 mill isn’t as bad as eriksson at 6mil now or then, turis might even score.

[Alflives]

3 minutes ago, combover said:

It was a bad signing (for this team) then it’s even worse now. Hindsight isn’t needed.as for  Magical hindsight well I think I’d use it for more personal gains.

He was 30+ on a rebuilding retooling transitional team whatever spin you want to believe signed to a 6 year deal.. some gms have no self control when UFAs come up spender jim is one of them.didnt the team say they were getting younger and trading away all the older vets. 

Turis at 6 mill isn’t as bad as eriksson at 6mil turis  now or then turis might even score.

Clearly the Eriksson signing was a miss; there's no doubt about it.  The Turris signing only makes Loui's contract appear even worse. 

[JM_]

50 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Jimmy, you have to be able to go back and evaluate decisions, that's how you determine if this were successes of failures. 

and you need to do it properly. Based on his career numbers and familiarity with the Sedins, the decision at the time was justifiable. Most people weren't thrilled about the salary but were excited about the production potential. Why that production isn't there is a totally different discussion. 

[JM_]

16 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Clearly the Eriksson signing was a miss; there's no doubt about it.  The Turris signing only makes Loui's contract appear even worse. 

But Alf thats not a logical way to look at it. Turris could now potentially go lay an egg in Nashville and be a terrible player there. Would that make Loui's contact better? The Turris signing tells us nothing about why Loui isn't producing. But the original idea of signing him had merit at the time with the info they had. Are we stuck with a boat anchor contract now, yup, but no one saw it coming expect for maybe @aGENT 

 

 

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

and you need to do it properly. Based on his career numbers and familiarity with the Sedins, the decision at the time was justifiable. Most people weren't thrilled about the salary but were excited about the production potential. Why that production isn't there is a totally different discussion. 

Louis' success with the Twins was all International play, wasn't it?  I know we all cheer for our guys during these types of tournaments, but there is a big difference in compete level from an NHL game.  (I was excited for Loui too, and feel he's a responsible player who only hurts the owner's pocket book, not really the game on the ice.)

[Rush17]

15 hours ago, combover said:

Yup, count down to lock out because the greedy owners have no self control and once again the lock will solve nothing, and the players will once again win and  they’ll  get Olympic participation as one of the conditions and salaries and ridiculous contracts will be signed days after it’s over .....

 

Another buy out window to the rescue.lol.

 

bo got 5.5 . not sure if 6 is that far off. turris was instrumental to the sens playoff run.  hes well worth the $$. 

 

Maybe in the later years it might stink. 

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Louis' success with the Twins was all International play, wasn't it?  I know we all cheer for our guys during these types of tournaments, but there is a big difference in compete level from an NHL game.  (I was excited for Loui too, and feel he's a responsible player who only hurts the owner's pocket book, not really the game on the ice.)

it was, but it was really nice to watch. Loui had many 50-70 pt NHL seasons so compete level wasn't an issue either. Everyone overpays for older free agents, thats just the NHL.

 

I really wonder how much of Loui's blown confidence is attributable to WD. Look at Vrbata, had a terrible time in his 2nd year with Willie once he got it into his head to move him from line to line, 4th line duties, etc. It was brutal. And then Vrbata goes off and has a 55 pt season on an interior team. Go figure. 

 

[combover]

1 minute ago, Rush17 said:

bo got 5.5 . not sure if 6 is that far off. turris was instrumental to the sens playoff run.  hes well worth the $$. 

 

Maybe in the later years it might stink. 

I don’t think the turis deal is that bad all things considered he might even be under paid currently when you look around at who’s making 6 mill. but owners will want to blame the players for the ever increasing salaries as they did before and they will even thou they drive the market and  want away out of some of the contracts they signed that might be a bit on long side.

i don’t see turis deal as one of them.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

7 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

and you need to do it properly. Based on his career numbers and familiarity with the Sedins, the decision at the time was justifiable. Most people weren't thrilled about the salary but were excited about the production potential. Why that production isn't there is a totally different discussion. 

Most people weren't thrilled by the signing at all as he didn't fit with the teams rebuilding goal.  But that's not even the point

 

There's more to a decision than just initial logic. Without reviewing and evaluating you skip out on the most important part of a decision making.  Anyone can make a decision and find reasons why you believe it's justifiable but reviewing and evaluating is what determines if that decision was a success. I'm sure people could find justification as to why NYI signed Rick DiPietro to a 15 year $67.5 million contract, that doesn't mean we can't write it off as one of the worst contracts giving out in the history of the NHL.

 

I don't know why people are so quick to brush off every failed moved as "hindsight".

 

With hindsight, Gaudette looks like a gem of a pick, so why are we allowed to praise using hindsight but not critique?  Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical.    

 

For example, if you are going to invest in a stock, first you do your research to help you make a decision if the company is worth investing in.  People tend to make calculated decisions when making high $ commitments, like we did with loui.  Now it would seem stupid if after making the investment, you just walked away and ignored the stock for the rest of your life.  That would never happen, people want to see how their investment is doing, they want to know if they made the right or wrong decision, which is done though reviewing and evaluating. 

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Most people weren't thrilled by the signing at all as he didn't fit with the teams rebuilding goal.  But that's not even the point

 

There's more to a decision than just initial logic. Without reviewing and evaluating you skip out on the most important part of a decision making.  Anyone can make a decision and find reasons why you believe it's justifiable but reviewing and evaluating is what determines if that decision was a success. I'm sure people could find justification as to why NYI signed Rick DiPietro to a 15 year $67.5 million contract, that doesn't mean we can't write it off as one of the worst contracts giving out in the history of the NHL.

 

I don't know why people are so quick to brush off every failed moved as "hindsight".

 

With hindsight, Gaudette looks like a gem of a pick, so why are we allowed to praise using hindsight but not critique?  Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical.    

 

For example, if you are going to invest in a stock, first you do your research to help you make a decision if the company is worth investing in.  People tend to make calculated decisions when making high $ commitments, like we did with loui.  Now it would seem stupid if after making the investment, you just walked away and ignored the stock for the rest of your life.  That would never happen, people want to see how their investment is doing, they want to know if they made the right or wrong decision, which is done though reviewing and evaluating. 

So what have you actually learned then? Don't sign a 50-70 point guy? Go even more off the boards and hope for more Gaudette's? Whats the actual lesson here?

 

I've been trying to figure out what the heck has gone wrong with Loui here for a while now, and I think its attributable to a perfect storm of bad coaching, the Sedin's decline and some pretty bad line mates.  I don't think its effort, otherwise his defensive play would suck too. Comparing his salary to another guys and saying see how bad Loui's is tells us nothing. 

 

 

 

[aGENT]

32 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

But Alf thats not a logical way to look at it. Turris could now potentially go lay an egg in Nashville and be a terrible player there. Would that make Loui's contact better? The Turris signing tells us nothing about why Loui isn't producing. But the original idea of signing him had merit at the time with the info they had. Are we stuck with a boat anchor contract now, yup, but no one saw it coming expect for maybe @aGENT 

 

 

Oh, I wasn't alone but I was pretty vocal that I didn't see him as a good fit with the twins 5v5 in the NHL. He wasn't the answer we were looking for IMO.

 

Still, most teams have a 'bad' contract or two they'd prefer they hadn't done. We're not alone there. And I hope at some point Eriksson can get in a groove and at least make a respectable go of it even if never fully living up to the contract. Maybe that happens after the twins are gone this year and we hopefully end up with a more complimentary mix/better fit for him and hopefully less movement around the lineup so he has some stability. 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

So what have you actually learned then? Don't sign a 50-70 point guy? Go even more off the boards and hope for more Gaudette's? Whats the actual lesson here?

The lesson is, when you are rebuilding don't sign a 31 year old to a 6 million, 6 year contract, signing bonus loaded (making it virtually buyout proof) with a full NTC on it for the majority of the term.. 

 

Gaudette is the result of mike Gillis trading Diaz for a 5th round pick.  That lesson is acquiring "a" pick is better than getting no pick. 

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

The lesson is, when you are rebuilding don't sign a 31 year old to a 6 million, 6 year contract, signing bonus loaded (making it virtually buyout proof) with a full NTC on it for the majority of the term.. 

 

Gaudette is the result of mike Gillis trading Diaz for a 5th round pick.  That lesson is acquiring "a" pick is better than getting no pick. 

we weren't committed to a rebuild yet. 

 

Gaudette was the 1/6 chance of a payoff for a pick at that level, and he actually hasn't shown he can play in the NHL yet. 

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

The lesson is, when you are rebuilding don't sign a 31 year old to a 6 million, 6 year contract, signing bonus loaded (making it virtually buyout proof) with a full NTC on it for the majority of the term.. 

 

Gaudette is the result of mike Gillis trading Diaz for a 5th round pick.  That lesson is acquiring "a" pick is better than getting no pick. 

When we got Loui, I was hoping he would be like Hossa: a 60+ point guy, who plays hard all over the ice.  His signing was, I think, the last of JB's retooling moves.  

[JM_]

3 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Oh, I wasn't alone but I was pretty vocal that I didn't see him as a good fit with the twins 5v5 in the NHL. He wasn't the answer we were looking for IMO.

 

Still, most teams have a 'bad' contract or two they'd prefer they hadn't done. We're not alone there. And I hope at some point Eriksson can get in a groove and at least make a respectable go of it even if never fully living up to the contract. Maybe that happens after the twins are gone this year and we hopefully end up with a more complimentary mix/better fit for him and hopefully less movement around the lineup so he has some stability. 

thats pretty much it, hoping for that better fit. IMO there's zero proof for calling Loui out on effort, so thats why i still think there may be a chance for JB to move his contract on a retained salary deal. 

 

 

 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

we weren't committed to a rebuild yet. 

Haha, well according to half of CDC, canucks have always been rebuilding since JB took over.

 

Nevertheless, it doesn't take rocket science to figure out that we were near a rebuild since the sedins were 35 year old with 2 years left on their contract and we just finished 3rd worst in the league. 

 

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

Gaudette was the 1/6 chance of a payoff for a pick at that level, and he actually hasn't shown he can play in the NHL yet. 

Yep but I'd much rather have Gaudette in our system than watching Diaz walk for nothing as a UFA, wouldn't you?

[JM_]

1 minute ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Haha, well according to half of CDC, canucks have always been rebuilding since JB took over.

 

Nevertheless, it doesn't take rocket science to figure out that we were near a rebuild since the sedins were 35 year old with 2 years left on their contract and we just finished 3rd worst in the league. 

 

Yep but I'd much rather have Gaudette in our system than watching Diaz walk for nothing as a UFA, wouldn't you?

Of course. He could turn out to be a real steal. But that doesn't necessarily follow that you go full on tank logic either. Look at this year e.g., you can see Bo and Boeser are building some great chemistry together and if they continue to have success we might squeak into a wildcard or be very close to a playoffs spot. Would you prefer we don't do that and tank for a higher pick? Or do you want to have the basis for new 1st line develop? 

[aGENT]

5 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

we weren't committed to a rebuild yet. 

 

Gaudette was the 1/6 chance of a payoff for a pick at that level, and he actually hasn't shown he can play in the NHL yet. 

Don't start this in this thread now too! 

 

As of yet, Eriksson's contract hasn't hindered the rebuild at all (might have helped it with his play last year in fact!  ). With the twins retiring (IMO), he shouldn't have a detrimental effect next year either. Anybody who thinks we're going to have a team full of kids overnight isn't paying attention. As I said, hopefully he finds a better and more stable fit next year and becomes at the least, a solid middle 6 contributor. Then in year 5 of his deal, we can hopefully move him once he's (again, hopefully) shown he can contribute more than he has thus far. His contract is quite movable those last 2 years if he can get his play back up to even a respectable level.

 

Rebuilding isn't black and white like some here seem to think. I'm quite happy to have Gaudette on board AND make smart UFA signings. Eriksson clearly can't fit in to that latter category yet but he does have time to redeem himself. And if not, well #$%^, there's our bad contract we have to deal with.

 

 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

Of course. He could turn out to be a real steal. But that doesn't necessarily follow that you go full on tank logic either. Look at this year e.g., you can see Bo and Boeser are building some great chemistry together and if they continue to have success we might squeak into a wildcard or be very close to a playoffs spot. Would you prefer we don't do that and tank for a higher pick? Or do you want to have the basis for new 1st line develop? 

What does a 5th round pick have to do with tanking?  Asset management is important, making sure you get value for expiring UFA's (even if it's just a 5th round pick) is the lesson to be learned.  I don't know what that has to do with tanking?

[JM_]

Just now, ForsbergTheGreat said:

What does a 5th round pick have to do with tanking?  Asset management is important, making sure you get value for expiring UFA's (even if it's just a 5th round pick) is the lesson to be learned.  I don't know what that has to do with tanking?

the whole 'burn it down get as many picks as possible' thing. the problem tho is you end up with a very very crappy team and still have to figure out development.