Re-Signing Torrey Mitchell

[mikeburn]

you get the idea. Its snobbery of the highest orser to call this a minor signing and disrespectful to a guy who has more than 500 games under his belt.

Just out of curiosity - what *do* you consider this signing to be then, and what do you consider to be a minor signing?

EDIT (to avoid further confusion): by "this signing", I'm referring to the actual signing that is the actual subject matter of the thread - Mitchell.

[coryberg]

Just out of curiosity - what *do* you consider this signing to be then, and what do you consider to be a minor signing?

It was never a signing... don't know how you both missed it. Timo was aquired from Philadelphia on February 27th 2015 for a 2015 2nd and a 2016 3rd.

Jackpot for Philly! Not a simple asset free signing that's for sure.

[mikeburn]

It was never a signing... don't know how you both missed it. Timo was aquired from Philadelphia on February 27th 2015 for a 2015 2nd and a 2016 3rd.

Jackpot for Philly! Not a simple asset free signing that's for sure.

FYI, I wasn't talking about Timo specifically, but the rule of thumb the other poster uses generally. Thanks anyway though.

[Guest]

I posted it in another thread, i'll share later.

[406281dylan]

I Live in MTL and the reaction here is that fans liked Mitchell because of his 5 playoff games he played well in. He was a no show for us during the regular season. 1.2 Mill is a fine amount for Mitchell however the 3 years is too long. We Prioritized Mitchell and now we might not be able to sign Galchenyuk before July 1. Many of us were hoping for Lapierre who would add much needed size and grit to our lineup.

[Guest]

A minor signing is either:

1. A signing by a minor team (AHL/KHL)

2. A signing by an NHL team that has minimal roster impact (outside prospect or AHL cover)

Neither this, Grubauer nor the impossibly named Finn are minor signings.

[mikeburn]

I posted it in another thread, i'll share later.

Never noticed. Maybe I didn't catch that thread.

A minor signing is either:

1. A signing by a minor team (AHL/KHL)

2. A signing by an NHL team that has minimal roster impact (outside prospect or AHL cover)

Neither this, Grubauer nor the impossibly named Finn are minor signings.

Thanks for the curiosity gap filler.

Guess I see your "1" as being a "minor league" signing, and your 2 as being a "minor" signing.

Where we'd quite apparently differ is that I see Mitchel as being that "minimal roster impact" guy, the kinda < $2.0-ish range gap filler role player, regardless of stage of career or career length to-date. Sure, Mitchell is versatile enough to slot up a line or two in a pinch, but then a lot of players have that in the tool box, especially the vets, and either way his career has been that of a bottom 9 guy and at his age he's a "gap filler". That's not intended as an insult though, just an acknowledgement that he's not an impact player at this stage.

Start getting into the $2.5 > $4.5 range and I'm thinking a "significant signing", specific team and role dependant of course, but even then not necessarily an "impact player". Getting above $4.5 and I go with "major signing" and am looking for more real "impact".

Lots of variables in it though of course, especially the actual on-ice role and expectations of a player, and the dollar values aren't a lock.

[Guest]

Whereas I see any player who is a lock to be on an NHL roster as being not minor. The Canucks nearly won a Cup despite the (apparently) minor signings of Raffi Torres and Manny Malhotra. I just don't think we should be trivialising the contributions these bottom six, bottom-pair, backup goalie type signings make to their teams.

I personally find these signings far more interesting than the endless saga of 'Blackhawk Player X may be traded, if Bowman gets out of bed on the wrong side at 4:34am and the sun is shining over the Danube'.

[mikeburn]

Whereas I see any player who is a lock to be on an NHL roster as being not minor. The Canucks nearly won a Cup despite the (apparently) minor signings of Raffi Torres and Manny Malhotra. I just don't think we should be trivialising the contributions these bottom six, bottom-pair, backup goalie type signings make to their teams.

I personally find these signings far more interesting than the endless saga of 'Blackhawk Player X may be traded, if Bowman gets out of bed on the wrong side at 4:34am and the sun is shining over the Danube'.

lol on your last bit

But otherwise I'd guess it's what each reader reads into a word or expression.

For example, I don't, by definition anyway, consider a "minor" signing to be "trivial". Actually, I likely wouldn't use trivial at all where it goes to any NHL signing - any guy that can break that final cusp to get into the big league isn't "trivial" in my book.

But there really are way more gap fillers and role players signed than those who are gonna be, or who are projected to be anyway, consistent impact players. Obviously a team needs and has room for all types (impact, role, gap fillers, clutch, etc.), but using words like "minor signing", "signing" and "major signing" (or whatever) to distinguish between a Mitchell, Lack and Ovechkin (for example) doesn't seem like a big deal, much less insulting. But that's me, and to each his own.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Guest]

Potato, potahto I guess

I just dislike people saying signings like this should be posted in the minor signings thread, when they each have their own intricacies and parts to play in the years ahead. Zach Hamill signing for an Uzbeki team should be in that thread, but for me this kind of signing is interesting as it feeds into those bigger signings people seem to crave.

Three years on a contender, not many guys get that luxury after playing for the Sabres.

[mikeburn]

Potato, potahto I guess

I just dislike people saying signings like this should be posted in the minor signings thread, when they each have their own intricacies and parts to play in the years ahead. Zach Hamill signing for an Uzbeki team should be in that thread, but for me this kind of signing is interesting as it feeds into those bigger signings people seem to crave.

Three years on a contender, not many guys get that luxury after playing for the Sabres.

You got humor going for ya anyway, lol (need it on here too!).

Dead on straight re: intricacies too. Being interested in Hodgson, I'll use him as an example - if he's bought out as widely speculated, I'd imagine it's probable he signs somewhere and within that "minor" dollar value range. But given the context, I'd consider his signing to be a "significant" one. Not a "major" signing, as in for a genuine impact player, but not entirely "minor" either due the whole story involved. Sorta like if Morrison had been signed by the Canucks after his PTO a few years back - I'd consider it "significant" despite the dollar value because of his Canuck history, but when he signed to a meager dollar value with Calgary it kinda ranked "minor" to me. Go figure.

Whatever, I get what you mean re: Mitchell and general context, and thanks again for clarifying.

ps: I think you meant spud and potatah. Just sayin'