TheBradyBunch
Registered User
- Dec 17, 2008
- 16,316
- 2,348
Imagine if we'd lost Bobby instead of Methot. Would probably be best for our long-term outlook but I doubt we'd be playing as well as we are right now.
Imagine if we'd lost Bobby instead of Methot. Would probably be best for our long-term outlook but I doubt we'd be playing as well as we are right now.
What would have been ideal was losing both of them. The amount of cap trading those players would give us + Mac's LTI would have given us so much flexibility. Leading up to last seasons playoffs Ryan wasn't as big of a cog on this team. As long as he remains this Bobby Ryan his contract shouldn't be as big of an issue but for the money he is making it is a very fine line.Imagine if we'd lost Bobby instead of Methot. Would probably be best for our long-term outlook but I doubt we'd be playing as well as we are right now.
What would have been ideal was losing both of them. The amount of cap trading those players would give us + Mac's LTI would have given us so much flexibility. Leading up to last seasons playoffs Ryan wasn't as big of a cog on this team. As long as he remains this Bobby Ryan his contract shouldn't be as big of an issue but for the money he is making it is a very fine line.
You could throw a bunch of cash at Tavares or at least let the media report it so he knows. not many teams would have the depth we do and the cap space to improve dramatically and then some. Without Mac and Meth we are fine. Without Ryan in the lineup over the last 4 seasons we were fine. We could have made a play for Panarin too. Losing those 3 players would not of left us in such a big hole that would could not have adapted too.What do you do with all that flexibility though?
You don't win hockey games with it.
Let's say you save up some cash for Karlsson, but you're losing hockey games and you don't make the playoffs. Is he as likely to stick around?
You could throw a bunch of cash at Tavares or at least let the media report it so he knows. not many teams would have the depth we do and the cap space to improve dramatically and then some. Without Mac and Meth we are fine. Without Ryan in the lineup over the last 4 seasons we were fine. We could have made a play for Panarin too. Losing those 3 players would not of left us in such a big hole that would could not have adapted too.
Where you even looking for an answer or where you finding a way to use that rebuttal?Yeah, see, I knew this was where it was going.
Now all we need is you to make a line-up with Tavares and Panarin in there instead of Ryan and criticize Dorion for not making it happen.
Where you even looking for answer or where you finding a way to use that rebuttal?
You asked what to do with that flexibility. You stated you can't win hockey games with it so I used the argument that losing those player would not have an adverse effect on our ability to ice pretty much the same team and how the extra cap "could" improve our team.
"Leading up to last seasons playoffs Ryan wasn't as big of a cog on this team. As long as he remains this Bobby Ryan his contract shouldn't be as big of an issue but for the money he is making it is a very fine line." My original statement acknowledges your first sentence and nowhere did i say he didn't have an impact for us in the playoffs.First off, Ryan had some impact on our playoff run last year. To say that the team would be "fine" in his absence, is unfair I think.
Has he lived up to his contract? Certainly not. Was he our best forward during our 2nd longest playoff run in franchise history? Arguably yes. He was our top scoring forward.
Are there players with that kind of skill set and performance readily available? Particularly in free agency? I don't think so.
We are fine without Methot now (based on 5 games), but were we in that position even two seasons ago?
They are rarely available, and when they are, the cost on them is typically driven up through competitive bidding. Very few free agents are worth their salaries, precisely because whoever wins the bidding war ends up overbidding.
The issue I have is that there is an automatic tendency to point to the best possible options for available cap space when there are 30 other teams competing for the services of those available players.
And the problem with that is that it sets unreasonable expectations for what a GM and an organization can do.
Suter and Parise both chose to move back home or relatively close to.Not to mention, when was the last time a franchise player walked in free agency? Even when a team is ****e, franchise players tend to stay put because it's where they're likely to get the biggest pay cheque - see Carey Price. He could've probably gotten a long term 7-8million contract with a contender but he went for that nice payday because winning comes second to most rational people. Suter and Parise are the most recent ones I can think of.
What did I change?First of all, you changed your post since I quoted yours.
Secondly, there's nothing wrong with a pipe dream discussion provided that's not the standard used to evaluate management.
There are Tavares discussions happening on 31 team boards around here.
This should be the disclaimer for the proposed trade thread so people know the rules.First of all, you changed your post since I quoted yours.
Secondly, there's nothing wrong with a pipe dream discussion provided that's not the standard used to evaluate management.
There are Tavares discussions happening on 31 team boards around here.
What did I change?
Just retaining all three of Stone/Turris/Karlsson alone will take 12 million of extra cap space alone. Say the cap goes up by 2 mil every year the next two years, we gain 4 million from that, 5.5 million from Burrows/Hammond/Thompson, and we're currently under the cap by 5 million. We're juts barely squeezing by without counting replacements for Burrows and Thompson at league minimum.
Clark Mcarthur will be another 5m off the books. Brassard will likely come off the books at the end of his contract (for one of Brown/White/chlapik). We should be fine, and still have room to add imo.
Getting out from under Methot's contractwas a blessing. Having the same happen with Ryan's contract would help that much more. Right now Phaneuf's position is more valuable to us that Ryan's is and that is why he is expendableI guess MacArthur's 4.5mil could be put on LTIR if needed to make room for an acquisition like Tavares. Turns out we have quite a bit of space after all. MacArthur's cap alone should allow us to resign Stone comfortably and Turris if he were willing to take less than 7-8 years at ~6million each.
I can't see Brown/White/Chlapik taking 4 million raises right away. I expect they'll be bridged a la Stone/Hoffman. Especially White who's going to have 1.5 years until his next contract. He'd had to overachieve quite a bit to command a 5 million contract. All just conjecture of course but more likely he has a 20-30 point season coming from a broken wrist, and maybe a 30-40 pt sophmore season and gets a 2 years 3million show me contract like Dzingle.
Getting out from under Methot's contract was a blessing. Having the same happen with Ryan's contract would help that much more. Right now Phaneuf's position is more valuable to us that Ryan's is and that is why he is expendable.