News Article: Are the Senators better under Boucher?

[Micklebot]

Clearly the sens arent going to come out and say we sold our 2nd round pick for x amount of dollars... Thats a marketing nighmare.

Everyone has an angle or a way they want to interpret what happened, your last sentence about brooks proves that. Which is fine we can all look at this from a perspective of what we are being sold and told as fans because they want us to fill the seats. However if you take a step back and look at the consistencies of the deals the sens have made recently they are all about cost cutting and forfeiting assets.

This is called conjecture not fact, though. If you want to say you believe that's what happened, all the power to you, but it you want to call it fact, sorry, that's not what a fact is. A fact is verifiable. Brooks posting his sources say something isn't a fact, it's evidence that supports a possibility. We don't know how close his sources were to the negotiations, nor do we know how much conjecture he's added to the information he was given. On top of that, when other sources suggest something else happened, (ie Dorion stating the opposite) we don't really have a verifiable fact, now do we? What we have is conjecture based on the information available, which is fine. It makes for great conversation, just don't be surprised when other people believe something else may have happened, or that there's more to the story.

 

[JD1]

However if you take a step back and look at the consistencies of the deals the sens have made recently they are all about cost cutting and forfeiting assets.

so where has this happened other than the Brassard / Mika deal which I question?

did we cut cost and forfeit assets in the Phaneuf deal? or the Wingels deal? please don't tell me that we forfeited Stortini and Buddy Robinson in order to get SJ to eat 1/2 of the remaining Wingels deal as evidence of this.

 

[SanderSen]

So some moves are made with an eye on the dollars? It is a fact of life in a small market team where the largest, by far, employer cannot buy a single ticket. Melnyk is wealthy but not Bill Gates wealth and it appears his holdings have been hit over the last few year. If Melnyk did have Gates type funds I think he would have no problem spending because he is a fan and wants a winner to.

I find it unreasonable that fans demand an owner spend to the limit of their fantasies.

 

[bert]

so where has this happened other than the Brassard / Mika deal which I question?

did we cut cost and forfeit assets in the Phaneuf deal? or the Wingels deal? please don't tell me that we forfeited Stortini and Buddy Robinson in order to get SJ to eat 1/2 of the remaining Wingels deal as evidence of this.

Phaneuf deal was certainly both about dollars and hockey. Especially considering how his contract is structured.

Including Stortini was cutting cash, adding Robinson was likey for the cash/retaining money, but I dont have confirmation of this. You are right Mickelbot this is conjecture but I am basing this off the other deals I know were made with dollars in mind.

The 2nd in the Brassard deal was absolutely about dollars and cents. I have a source that confirmed this.

 

[JD1]

Phaneuf deal was certainly both about dollars and hockey. Especially considering how his contract is structured.

Including Stortini was cutting cash, adding Robinson was likey for the cash/retaining money, but I dont have confirmation of this. You are right Mickelbot this is conjecture but I am basing this off the other deals I know were made with dollars in mind.

The 2nd in the Brassard deal was absolutely about dollars and cents. I have a source that confirmed this.

sure the Phaneuf deal was partially about dollars. Front loaded contracts make a player more valuable in certain circumstances once the heavy part of the front load is done.

what is the prorated value of wingels contract? doesn't seem to me that the team saved money acquiring him. how does the deal change if Stortini doesn't go the other way.

A source that confirms the Brassard deal was delayed so NYR paid the bonus and we threw in a 2nd for that? you have a source that confirmed that sequence of events? directly to you? Someone with first hand knowledge? hmmmm.....I doubt that.

 

[Vesa Awesaka]

sure the Phaneuf deal was partially about dollars. Front loaded contracts make a player more valuable in certain circumstances once the heavy part of the front load is done.

what is the prorated value of wingels contract? doesn't seem to me that the team saved money acquiring him. how does the deal change if Stortini doesn't go the other way.

A source that confirms the Brassard deal was delayed so NYR paid the bonus and we threw in a 2nd for that? you have a source that confirmed that sequence of events? directly to you? Someone with first hand knowledge? hmmmm.....I doubt that.

Hemsky deal. We gave up more so Edmonton would retain. I think theres more too. Im more inclined to believe the team does emphasize saving money more than most

 

[aragorn]

Hemsky deal. We gave up more so Edmonton would retain. I think theres more too. Im more inclined to believe the team does emphasize saving money more than most

I tend to agree, we have often heard from this organization the term, "money in - money out" which I take to mean the same amount of money coming in should amount to approximately the same amount of money going out. I'm not sure if that has happened in all cases but it might be a guideline for the GM to follow here to try & stay within budget.

 

[JD1]

GMS are quoted all the time making statements along the lines of money in money out. news at 11. that is very different than someone saying the 2nd in the Brassard deal was compensation for NYR paying his bonus and that they have a source that confirmed this.

 

[Hale The Villain]

Larry Brooks confirmed that the Sens gave up the 2nd to get the Rangers to pay the signing bonus

People just don't believe it because Brooksie gets a bad rap, and because they don't want to believe it, either because they don't want to believe the Sens budget is that bad, or because they don't want to believe Dorion is stupid for doing it.

 

[Langdon Alger]

Of course the 2nd was for them to pay the bonus. You don't need insider info to figure that out. It was obvious from the beginning.

 

[Hutz]

Did you miss Meknyks interview when he asked if Boudreau walked on water? Or how about when the sens added the 2nd because NYR ate Brassards bonus? What about when San Jose retained 250 k of Wingles salary and SJ took Stortini?

It was a money issue, as well as term. Either way both Boucher and Boudreau have been great this season.

Nope, didn't miss any of that, although, I'd ask the same question for the bonus vs. 2nd. As far as I know, only Larry Brooks has ever said that, not sure why I should believe him over anyone else. (EDIT: I see this has been tackled a bit since my first post)

Not really sure what that or Wingels has to do with what I was responding to, though:

Originally I hated it at the time, all I saw was Dorion and Melynk trying to save a dollar hiring Boucher over the best option Boudreau (which is true).

The assertion was that this was true rather than being his perception of the facts. I'd love to see proof rather than just take anonymous forum members word on it. Here's a little secret, I don't believe there is any so calling it "True" is rather disingenuous. There have been plenty of other equally or more plausible explanations posited in this thread.

 

[JD1]

Larry Brooks confirmed that the Sens gave up the 2nd to get the Rangers to pay the signing bonus

People just don't believe it because Brooksie gets a bad rap, and because they don't want to believe it, either because they don't want to believe the Sens budget is that bad, or because they don't want to believe Dorion is stupid for doing it.

you are really out doing yourself Hale. Brooks has less credibility than the 2 Sun writers that are joked about on these boards. It's true because Brooksie said so. Next thing you'll post is that your buddy Torts told you that everything Brooksie says is true.

 

[JD1]

Of course the 2nd was for them to pay the bonus. You don't need insider info to figure that out. It was obvious from the beginning.

how did you figure it out? i'm curious on the thought process. must have been something like "the comments from the GMs don't make sense so there has to be more to it. Internet GMs know Zbad < Brassard isn't true so there has to be some conspiracy here to explain the trade"

I'll say again there is no credible evidence anywhere that supports the view that the 2nd was to compensate for NYR paying the bonus. .

 

[Micklebot]

Lets get back on topic please:

Getting off topic wrt whether or not the org is making cost cutting moves, this thread is about whether or not the Sens are better under Boucher, not whether moves in the past including hiring Boucher were done to save money.

If you want to talk about moves that were financially motivated rather than based on on ice product, make sure to link it back to the topic at hand, current Sens vs sens prior to hiring Boucher. Whether or not Brooksie is a reliable source, or whether him claiming a source told him something is sufficient to claim it's a confirmed fact does not fit the bill, so take that conversation to a more appropriate thread if you want to continue down that rabbit hole,