theo5789 Posted October 2, 2020 Share Posted October 2, 2020 13 minutes ago, aGENT said: Eriksson's deal already paid his bonus. He's only owed $1m more actual dollars, spread over next season. And then another $4 next year. OEL is still owed $4m this year and $10.5 next. That's a LOT of pretty immediate saving. Yes, but if that's the principal of the deal, then Arizona might as well fold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry_Wilkins Posted October 2, 2020 Share Posted October 2, 2020 1 minute ago, theo5789 said: Yes, but if that's the principal of the deal, then Arizona might as well fold. Bettman's been giving Phoenix/Arizona mouth-to-mouth for well over a decade. The economic aftereffects of Covid's going to finally finish off the Yotes, not that anyone in that city cares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theo5789 Posted October 2, 2020 Share Posted October 2, 2020 6 minutes ago, peaches5 said: Look at how Boston signs players. I don't see Boston trading for OEL unless salary is retained. You can't be paying Bergeron, Pastrnak and Marchand under 6.9m and then trade for OEL who is making 8.2m. It's a slap in the face to all those guys who took really cheap contracts. Those are basically 3 players who took Mackinnon like contracts. They are in a position to ask for retention (upping their potential offer though if done so). I don't see it as a slap in the face though because it's not a contract they signed. Why should the GM be looked down upon from those players after acquiring a player to help them win now? I could see this point if they signed him as a UFA at that price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peaches5 Posted October 2, 2020 Share Posted October 2, 2020 Just now, theo5789 said: They are in a position to ask for retention (upping their potential offer though if done so). I don't see it as a slap in the face though because it's not a contract they signed. Why should the GM be looked down upon from those players after acquiring a player to help them win now? I could see this point if they signed him as a UFA at that price. 3 guys who are tops in the league at their positions and they take huge discounts upwards of 35%+ and then they potentially bring in a guy making more than them? Doesn't look good especially if the GM sold them on taking a discount to be a contender. This is why Krug hasn't signed most likely. He doesn't want to take the team friendly discount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rocket Posted October 2, 2020 Share Posted October 2, 2020 3 minutes ago, peaches5 said: 3 guys who are tops in the league at their positions and they take huge discounts upwards of 35%+ and then they potentially bring in a guy making more than them? Doesn't look good especially if the GM sold them on taking a discount to be a contender. This is why Krug hasn't signed most likely. He doesn't want to take the team friendly discount. You’d have to be exceptionally petty and narcissistic to be upset that your GM traded for a good player just because he makes more money than you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted October 2, 2020 Share Posted October 2, 2020 10 minutes ago, Barry_Wilkins said: Bettman's been giving Phoenix/Arizona mouth-to-mouth for well over a decade. The economic aftereffects of Covid's going to finally finish off the Yotes, not that anyone in that city cares. So maybe they know this franchise is moving soon(info that's closely protected)? In this event, they'd like to move as many expensive assets(beforehand) as possible. Moving out the young GM might have also helped. Then after moving(finally folding the desert Dog) watch Battman return the rest of their penalized picks(fresh start & all that) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theo5789 Posted October 2, 2020 Share Posted October 2, 2020 3 minutes ago, peaches5 said: 3 guys who are tops in the league at their positions and they take huge discounts upwards of 35%+ and then they potentially bring in a guy making more than them? Doesn't look good especially if the GM sold them on taking a discount to be a contender. This is why Krug hasn't signed most likely. He doesn't want to take the team friendly discount. They won cups, adding OEL would give a chance at more. What's there to be salty about? Again, they didn't sign OEL to that contract, but he could be had for a bargain, so I think those players will understand and be thankful to be given more opportunities to win. With that said, Pastrnak didn't sign a discounted deal, he signed a pretty fair contract when he did and has simply risen to new heights during it. He chose to take on more term than he should've to get him paid out earlier. Bergeron's contract was signed like 6-7 years ago. His contract was expensive at that time. Marchand's contract takes him til he's 37, we will see if it's during that duration. With that said, these three players like MacKinnon have elevated their games after signing their deals. There's no reason for them to see an acquisition of OEL as anything but a boost to their team to help them win more games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peaches5 Posted October 2, 2020 Share Posted October 2, 2020 10 minutes ago, The_Rocket said: You’d have to be exceptionally petty and narcissistic to be upset that your GM traded for a good player just because he makes more money than you. No. Holland was going to ask Lidstrom permission to sign Hossa and Hossa just said don't worry about it I will take less. He did this because he told Lidstrom he would be the highest paid player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
86Viking Posted October 2, 2020 Share Posted October 2, 2020 Will Markstrom take a bit less if we are able to acquire OEL? They are good friends apparently... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theo5789 Posted October 2, 2020 Share Posted October 2, 2020 2 minutes ago, peaches5 said: No. Holland was going to ask Lidstrom permission to sign Hossa and Hossa just said don't worry about it I will take less. He did this because he told Lidstrom he would be the highest paid player. And this is why I mentioned it would be different if he was a UFA. Their GM didn't sign him to the contract, he could get him at a bargain. Would his teammates want to detriment the team (as they would have to offer a higher return for retention) because they feel like OEL should be paid less? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rocket Posted October 2, 2020 Share Posted October 2, 2020 3 minutes ago, theo5789 said: And this is why I mentioned it would be different if he was a UFA. Their GM didn't sign him to the contract, he could get him at a bargain. Would his teammates want to detriment the team (as they would have to offer a higher return for retention) because they feel like OEL should be paid less? Exactly. OEL is going to be paid his money whether Boston signs him or not. It makes no difference to the players on the team if he makes more, just as long as he helps them win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outsiders Posted October 2, 2020 Share Posted October 2, 2020 1 hour ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said: Not radio silence, but certainly nowhere near the level of chatter here. Of course, that’s not entirely surprising, given the that we’re a much “noisier” market, when it comes to stuff like offseason rumour mongering. One wrinkle I’m seeing from Boston Twitter is that it appears the Bruins were really set on protecting McAvoy, Carlo, and Grzelcyk for the expansion draft, and adding OEL means Grizz goes exposed (and very likely claimed). That might be an acceptable cost of business, when you’re talking about adding a player like OEL, and Grzelcyk is hardly irreplaceable. However, he is quite well regarded in Boston, and seen as a part of their future core (or at least their “extended core”), so maybe the potential of losing him is a factor, and one that’s having a slight cooling effect, when considering a trade for OEL. Vancouver, on the other hand, really doesn’t face much pressure from the expansion draft, when it comes to protection slots and the potential for losing Dmen. Even if OEL and his NMC are added to the mix (since waived clauses now remain with contracts and are no longer voided after trades, under the new CBA terms), the Canucks really don’t have any “core” Dmen that would be at risk being left unprotected. Jake DeBrusk is also playing a factor in why a deal between BOS and ARI might not work. That is the player BOS wants to send the other way. Mostly because he's an RFA and they are having trouble agreeing to a contract. Rumours are Jake DeBrusk wants 5+ million on a long term extension. ARI is trying to shed cap in the short term as well as future so I don't see how trading for Debrusk helps them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peaches5 Posted October 2, 2020 Share Posted October 2, 2020 14 minutes ago, theo5789 said: And this is why I mentioned it would be different if he was a UFA. Their GM didn't sign him to the contract, he could get him at a bargain. Would his teammates want to detriment the team (as they would have to offer a higher return for retention) because they feel like OEL should be paid less? It has nothing do with a UFA or a trade.. why would you think a trade makes any difference.. You took a discount cause the GM tells you that is what needs to be done in order to compete for a cup and then he goes out and trades for a guy with a huge salary and larger cap hit and you think this magically changes things? It changes nothing. That logic makes absolutely no sense. also what cups did they win? They won one in 2011 and these cap friendly contracts were signed well after that and they haven't won since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete M Posted October 2, 2020 Share Posted October 2, 2020 Pass on this soon to be a bad contract in 3 to 4 years....how you like the LE contract? Last three years of OEL's will be the same but at $8M. No thank-you....we have up and coming dmen in the farm system that will surprise us all in a good way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peaches5 Posted October 2, 2020 Share Posted October 2, 2020 Just now, Pete M said: Pass on this soon to be a bad contract in 3 to 4 years....how you like the LE contract? Last three years of OEL's will be the same but at $8M. No thank-you....we have up and coming dmen in the farm system that will surprise us all in a good way. One OEL is far better than Eriksson. Two the contract isn't anything remotely close to being the same as it is buyout friendly. We have no dman that is projected to be a number 1/2 guy in the system. Everything you said was wrong. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted October 2, 2020 Share Posted October 2, 2020 47 minutes ago, peaches5 said: Look at how Boston signs players. I don't see Boston trading for OEL unless salary is retained. You can't be paying Bergeron, Pastrnak and Marchand under 6.9m and then trade for OEL who is making 8.2m. It's a slap in the face to all those guys who took really cheap contracts. Those are basically 3 players who took Mackinnon like contracts. we're paying every forward less than LE.... but LE was signed at a time when the Sedins were here, and that was an internal ceiling of sorts. however, Ekman-larrson is a contract that, if taken on in the context of a cap dump going the other way - a contract that was signed elsewhere - it takes on a different meaning in terms of internal ceilings - it wasn't negotiated here, and part of taking it on, presumably, would be in sending an Eriksson the other way. I doubt any of the players would fail to understand the context, and further, once they play with him, they probably won't be protesting his cap hit. whenever I've watched us face Arizona, it's difficult not to notice that he was - in general - the best player on the ice - and that is no disrespect to anyone that's been a Canuck over the duration of his career.... At the same time, while I think the lowball proposals here aren't particularly realistic in terms of value, particularly when hoping to package in a significant cap dump in the process (LE) - I nevertheless agree with those proposals in the sense that we 'should' hold out - as much as reasonably possible - to lowballs. In the end, screw the Arizona Coyotes. So, in the sense of playing hardball with Eriksson regarding not retaining or spending assets to accommodate him, this team doesn't owe Bettman, Arizona or the NHL a thing. If Boston were to tip their hand and tap out - I'm all for being as ruthless as possible in the negotiation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shazzam Posted October 2, 2020 Share Posted October 2, 2020 55 minutes ago, peaches5 said: Look at how Boston signs players. I don't see Boston trading for OEL unless salary is retained. You can't be paying Bergeron, Pastrnak and Marchand under 6.9m and then trade for OEL who is making 8.2m. It's a slap in the face to all those guys who took really cheap contracts. Those are basically 3 players who took Mackinnon like contracts. Marchand's contract was fair at the time. 61 pts was his career high. He broke out right after into a 85+ pts player. If only he waited until the end of the season for an extension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris12345 Posted October 2, 2020 Share Posted October 2, 2020 1 hour ago, Junkyard Dog said: HE IS?? Yes under our current roster we can't even protect enough players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rekker Posted October 2, 2020 Share Posted October 2, 2020 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Pete M said: Pass on this soon to be a bad contract in 3 to 4 years....how you like the LE contract? Last three years of OEL's will be the same but at $8M. No thank-you....we have up and coming dmen in the farm system that will surprise us all in a good way. Can't agree. Watching the final four to six teams in the playoffs and the other teams D was just way deeper. It can't be overlooked how having another quality D threat will elevate time and space for Hughes game. Teams were relentless on checking Quinn so having another threat will help alleviate that. Edited October 2, 2020 by rekker 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete M Posted October 2, 2020 Share Posted October 2, 2020 1 minute ago, peaches5 said: One OEL is far better than Eriksson. Two the contract isn't anything remotely close to being the same as it is buyout friendly. We have no dman that is projected to be a number 1/2 guy in the system. Everything you said was wrong. 7 years left on a $8M+ contract for a 29 year old dman...36 year old at the end of his contract....I think JB will be heading down the wrong road here...Number 1 dman for how long? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts