hockeyfan90 Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 The amount would have been good if it was 2-3 years, but 7 years is way too long. They will regret this 5 years down the road when their youngsters need to be resigned like Okposo and Strome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeremyCuddles Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 I guess he works really well with the team and they don't want to mess with that. Like how we let Ehrhoff go and our offense started to go down hill. Given the isles history, he'll get bought out down the road. Erhoff didn't think he could win here. We sent him a fair contract he walked. Grossly over paying to keep him means we lose an asset somewhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shazzam Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 Erhoff didn't think he could win here. We sent him a fair contract he walked. Grossly over paying to keep him means we lose an asset somewhere else. If rumors were true and he was offered Bieksa's contract, then no he was not given a fair contract. He signed 10 years at 40 mill. The last 3 years are 1 mill each which I bet he was not going to play. So would he have taken 7 years at 37 mill with us? We're looking at 5.2 cap hit, which would have been more than reasonable for this production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 If rumors were true and he was offered Bieksa's contract, then no he was not given a fair contract. I disagree. When that contract offer was tendered, Bieksa had just wrapped up a season in which he and Dan Hamhuis combined to be the top shut-down defensive pair in the league. It was their play against the other teams` top players that allowed Vigneault the luxury of putting Ehrhoff into situations where he could concentrate more on offence. IMO, Ehrhoff`s production was a result of the team he played for, as much as it was his own ability. The fact that his seasonal point average dropped by 16 from his time in Vancouver to when he played in Buffalo would appear to bear this out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shazzam Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 I disagree. When that contract offer was tendered, Bieksa had just wrapped up a season in which he and Dan Hamhuis combined to be the top shut-down defensive pair in the league. It was their play against the other teams` top players that allowed Vigneault the luxury of putting Ehrhoff into situations where he could concentrate more on offence. IMO, Ehrhoff`s production was a result of the team he played for, as much as it was his own ability. The fact that his seasonal point average dropped by 16 from his time in Vancouver to when he played in Buffalo would appear to bear this out. I can argue it the other way as well. It was Ehrhoff's offense that allowed Bieksa to take smaller offensive role and concentrate on defense. Our offense and defense benefited with Ehrhoff. All of our core, including Ehrhoff had career years when he was here. The bottom line is we did not keep a good thing together and it cost us greatly. We can't buy back the prime years of our core. It's gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 I can argue it the other way as well. It was Ehrhoff's offense that allowed Bieksa to take smaller offensive role and concentrate on defense. Our offense and defense benefited with Ehrhoff. All of our core, including Ehrhoff had career years when he was here. The bottom line is we did not keep a good thing together and it cost us greatly. We can't buy back the prime years of our core. It's gone. You should take a look at how many points he put up the year after Ehrhoff left. Then tell me the contract offer wan't fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Jane Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManUtd Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 It is satisfying to know that its not just CDC and Vancouver. Other teams have fans that panic unnecessarily! This said; If I'm Colorado > I'm ok locking Barrie up for 6 or 7 years in numbers 85 or 90% of what Doughty and Letang make. He is showing himself to be an elite offensive D man. He's 22 and already has two seasons of offensive scoring better than ANY Boychuck has accomplished in his career. The real deal! EJ is going to take cautious consideration. It is time to forget he WAS a first overall pick. He is a good D man, his reputation tarnished by the fact he was traded for Shatenkirk who has outperformed him. He is a tweener. Definitely better than an average NHL blue line guy, but not elite. Like Edler? Including having some hiccups. If he signed a deal like Edler's (bit higher in todays market is fine) I'm ok with him. Remember, or accept , Colorado should be cautiously building and are not going to win a Stanley Cup next year. They need to build carefully, get this and assets for ROR right to get back to being a contender. If he signs for 3 to 5 years at $5.2 to $5.5 (He is UFA and has some leverage) he can continue to be a building block. Otherwise in a heartbeat, I would trade Eric Johnson at next years deadline. Colorado could score a mitt full of young assets to compliment McKinnon, Varlemov, Landeskog, Barrie and Duchesne (it's true core). And have EJ's cap hit next summer to spend on another D who will probably be at least almost as good! That would serve the team better than overpaying Johnson IMO. You'll have trouble finding a single Avs fan who would trade EJ for Shattenkirk. Both players went to the right teams that put them in the right situations. Lots of people still have this impression of him from a couple years ago that he's a good top 4 guy who never lived up to his hype and that's it. While he definitely didn't deserve to go #1 and will never be as good as he was hyped to be, under Roy he's blossomed into a low tier #1D. He is our defence and it's even more atrocious without him. He's the guy you can put out against top competition night in and night out. Put Hejda next to him and he looks like a completely passable top 4 guy when he should/would be a bottom pairing guy everywhere else. Every Av fan out there would give up Barrie long before they'd let EJ go. Barrie is an excellent offensive guy but he really needs sheltering defensively. He's not the guy you want out against top competition. Particularly given our offensive woes this season, EJ is our most important skater and MVP behind Varlamov. He's getting paid but the Boychuk contract ruined any chance of getting him in at under 6.5 long term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cripplereh Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 good signing but not for 7 years should have been 3 to 5! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shazzam Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 You should take a look at how many points he put up the year after Ehrhoff left. Then tell me the contract offer wan't fair. and his plus minus dropped by 20. Thanks for proving my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hatedkid666 Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Why they overpay for him when they have hamonic, Reinhart, amongst other prospects and young d Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 good signing but not for 7 years should have been 3 to 5! Players who are 30 years old are looking for term. No matter the amount, Boychuk would have declined it if it were not a long term contract. Winnipeg is about to experience this in the offseason with Byfuglien. Chances are the Jets are going to have to shell out $7.5-$8M per year over 7 years, just to keep him around. Just like Boychuk, no way he'll sign a short term contract at his age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Me_ Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Players who are 30 years old are looking for term. No matter the amount, Boychuk would have declined it if it were not a long term contract. Winnipeg is about to experience this in the offseason with Byfuglien. Chances are the Jets are going to have to shell out $7.5-$8M per year over 7 years, just to keep him around. Just like Boychuk, no way he'll sign a short term contract at his age. I would not be surprised to see the Jets trade Byfuglien at the trade deadline. It's a lot for that small town. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 I would not be surprised to see the Jets trade Byfuglien at the trade deadline. It's a lot for that small town. In a sense, I agree that it wouldn't surprise me if they traded him, but not because they can't afford him, because they can. No, it's more because Chevy has been an incredibly patient GM who has always taken the approach of looking at the future. On one hand, Byfuglien is one of a few players who has the ability to completely change the momentum of a game by a single hit or by scoring a goal. The team just seems to rally around him. So not locking him up seems like a huge mistake (see: Senators with Chara). However, is he the type of player that will only get worse due to his size (injury) and become a declining asset? That's the $8M question. The return that the Jets can get for trading him would be huge. Absolutely huge. Anyway, back to Boychuk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 and his plus minus dropped by 20. Thanks for proving my point. So? Are you saying that he didn't earn his salary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.