elvis15 Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 You can't buy lower than free. But this is a ton of term with a big cap hit considering that. As people have said, would anyone in their right mind want Boychuck past 35/36 at a $6M cap hit? I'm not even sure I want him at 31 at that price. With 32 points in 59 games, it's turning into a great season for him, but it's also the only one he's had remotely close to this. A couple of years of 15/16 points, then 23 last year in 75 games, but nothing to suggest he'd be a regular 30+ point defenceman for anything more than a couple of years - and the Isles just locked him in for 7... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Bang Boogie Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 This will be a good signing for the next few years but once Johnny hits 35+, this deal won't look so hot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 You can't buy lower than free. Exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Wow how is Tanev even comparable to Johnny Boychuk?! Also, you don't think that's an overpayment? Signing Tanev for anything similar to that would also be an overpayment. If I was an Isles fan, I would be pissed that Snow spent that much $$$ to keep Boychuk If Tanev asks for an overpayment like that, we have the luxury of trading his RFA rights - something NYI coul not do with Boychuk. There is simply no way we overpay for Tanev the way NYI did for Boychuk Reading fail. It was half as much. Well then it's just a poor comment because nobody is complaining about $3 million for Tanev... Literally nobody - a lot of people have an issue with Tanev getting Hamhuis money, but $3 million and you could not find a single soul that would complain Again, you type without getting the point. No-one is complaining about Tanev at 3 million, because it's a pipe dream. However, the board has been flooded with the opinion that $4.5 million is a huge overpayment. With Boychuk making 6 million per, those who think Tanev can be retained for half that amount are dreaming in technicolor. Speaking of "poor comments", maybe should should have half a clue what you're talking about, before commenting yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRussianRocket. Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Holy smokes. 5 years Max was what I thought he'd get. Good for Boychuk, like him, good dman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dasein Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Reading fail. It was half as much. Again, you type without getting the point. No-one is complaining about Tanev at 3 million, because it's a pipe dream. However, the board has been flooded with the opinion that $4.5 million is a huge overpayment. With Boychuk making 6 million per, those who think Tanev can be retained for half that amount are dreaming in technicolor. Speaking of "poor comments", maybe should should have half a clue what you're talking about, before commenting yourself. How is it not a poor comment? Boychuk defends just as well, but will crush forwards in the defensive zone and crush pucks with his shot in the offensive zone. Tanev does not have either of those which make Boychuk worth that much more Not only that, Boychuk is a UFA - meaning NYI has no leverage whatsoever in their contract negotiation. They could lose Boychuk for nothing if they don't re-sign him, so Boychuk had the upper hand in the deal With Tanev, however, we can set a price that we won't step over and negotiate from a position of power because Tanev is an RFA. If he is asking for that overpayment, we can easily trade him and move on The comparison is so off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 The comparison is so off That's where I think your confusion lies. Nobody was comparing the two players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuktravella Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 isles defense is good now way to go snow bit to long a term but they will get at least 5 good seasons from him. the last two yrs they can always trade him retaining half the salary some one will pick him up for 3 mill a yr when hes 37-38 wonder if this signing means pulock or reinhart might be available at draft hopefully benning can pulock away. When tavares contract is up he will get signed for max contract he deserves it tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuktravella Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 tanev doesnt have a ton of offense or physicality hes work 3.75 not 6 lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clutesi Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 He's got the hard shot, but it's his ability and willingness to seriously hurt people that sets him apart. but that's hockey for you. I thought Montreal totally exploited his poor skating when they met Boston in the playoffs. NY should know he's only going to get slower as the league gets faster. How is it that the Islanders keep getting boneheaded managers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duodenum Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Don't mind the deal at all. The Isles finally have a good team and want to maintain this success for at least the next 4-5 seasons, hence the long term deals for both Leddy and Boychuk. Good dmen are hard to come by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazzle Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Another bad, long-term contract signed and allowed by the league. That NHL lockout was really just a huge waste of time that wasn't really about preventing anymore long term contracts. Both NHLPA/NHL are to blame for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-AJ- Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 About $1M too much and 1 year too long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dasein Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 That's where I think your confusion lies. Nobody was comparing the two players. I interpreted it as a comparison of each player's worth in terms of $$$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2SKATES1STICK Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 what the eff. at that average id have given 4 years max. how would boychuk get more than that as a ufa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 I interpreted it as a comparison of each player's worth in terms of $$$ It was. If Boychuk's getting $6m (albeit a $500k-$1m overpayment IMO), getting Tanev at anything even close to $3m will be VERY difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dasein Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 It was. If Boychuk's getting $6m (albeit a $500k-$1m overpayment IMO), getting Tanev at anything even close to $3m will be VERY difficult. But the negotiation process is different between an UFA and RFA It's an overpayment because of his age and term IMO (if it was 3-4 years, bang on) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManUtd Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Thanks a lot NYI. So much for the pipe dream of getting EJ locked up long term at a good discount. We're going to have trouble getting him at anything under 7 million for 8 years come July 1st with the precedent this set. EJ and Barrie will probably come close to 100 million this summer between them. Good times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Better them than us I guess, I don't like that contract. Too much and two years too long. I like the Isles though, so hopefully it doesn't hurt them too much later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 that term is two years too long imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.