Bang for the Buck

[danielpalfredsson]

Neil's fine in his limited role. The bigger plus isn't his charity work, but is probably what he brings to the room. The team made a very obvious attempt at adding more leadership and experience this summer with the additions of Kelly and Brassard, both guys that are known for their leadership qualities and have been deep in the playoffs multiple times in recent history.

Neil's overpaid on paper for someone who plays 6-7 minutes a game. But there's a tax on veteran leadership. I would guess that he probably brings a significant enough plus off the ice that paying him 1.5M vs one of our 14th-16th forwards up at 800k is worth it. Not to mention his unique skillset as one of the last pugilists.

 

[Xspyrit]

Ottawa is the 4th less spending team this year. That is why MacArthur (4.5) not playing hurts.

- Phaneuf is a bargain because of the context of the trade (Leafs retained 11.7 +). His real cost for the Sens is like 4.23 per season.

- Brassard is fine because his cost to Ottawa this season is only 3.0

- Only player "overpaid" compared to the real cost to the Ottawa Senators is Bobby Ryan but at least he has been good value in his first 3 years in Ottawa (5.562, 5.562 and 6.5 were his salaries and he produced at a 57 pts pace, which is top-60 in the NHL nowadays)

- Neil doesn't bring much anymore but 1.5 for a legacy player is not a big deal. He didn't cost much to the team for his whole career.

- Kelly and Lazar don't bring much but at least they have very low salaries. Same for Boro, who at least brings a lot of physicality.

- Hammond is another wasted cost.

Everybody else is fine or out-performing their salary

Players I'd move when possible are Neil (retirement), Kelly (retirement), Lazar (asset in trade) and Hammond. I am ready to move Ryan if it gives more financial flexibility to the team.

Actually, a package of Ryan + Ceci + Lazar, what could we get for that?

It would allow the Sens to keep Methot after the expansion draft.

I mean, unless your dentition of outperforming his salary playing on an entry level contract or equivalent while putting up top 6 numbers, that's pretty insane.

It's not very honest when you know about hockey like Fuhr...

Well Murray has our team built with Ryan and phaneuf being the top two earner mega contracts. So it's a little tough to evaluate everything else when it's that skewed.

Comon Bianco, you are a little smarter than that. You should know, for somebody who hangs around here quite a bit, that Phaneuf was acquired because he was a bargain despite his high salary (6.6 x 5 years). It's like if Toronto retained 11.4 in salary (+ last quarter of 2015-16 season)

Remember that Phaneuf isn't costing us his cap hit. He has a backloaded contract, and the Leafs took care of the expensive years.

I had a post about this but the Leafs paid like 28 M$ for like 1.75 years while the Sens paid 23 M$ for 5.25 years.

 

[FlyingJ]

- Phaneuf is a bargain because of the context of the trade (Leafs retained 11.7 +). His real cost for the Sens is like 4.23 per season.

Comon Bianco, you are a little smarter than that. You should know, for somebody who hangs around here quite a bit, that Phaneuf was acquired because he was a bargain despite his high salary (6.6 x 5 years). It's like if Toronto retained 11.4 in salary (+ last quarter of 2015-16 season)



I had a post about this but the Leafs paid like 28 M$ for like 1.75 years while the Sens paid 23 M$ for 5.25 years.

The mental gymnastics here...

I'm assuming you're factoring in the contracts the Leafs took from the Sens: Michalek, Greening, and Cowen. But you're ignoring the fact that all of those contracts would be up after this season anyways. So the Sens saved a bit of money down the stretch last season, and a decent chunk this season. That's it. After that, it's all on the Sens.

And by the end of that contract, do you really think Phaneuf's play is going to be worth $5.5 million as a 35 year old? I guess anything can happen, but I wouldn't take that bet.

 

[Beville]

Stats as per Cap Friendly.

Dzingel at the cheap end of the spectrum coming in at $37,500 per point and Methot coming in at $1,225,000

 

[Micklebot]

The mental gymnastics here...

I'm assuming you're factoring in the contracts the Leafs took from the Sens: Michalek, Greening, and Cowen. But you're ignoring the fact that all of those contracts would be up after this season anyways. So the Sens saved a bit of money down the stretch last season, and a decent chunk this season. That's it. After that, it's all on the Sens.

And by the end of that contract, do you really think Phaneuf's play is going to be worth $5.5 million as a 35 year old? I guess anything can happen, but I wouldn't take that bet.

You can take a couple approaches wrt to Phaneuf's value, given that Ottawa is not a cap team, I'll focus on approaches that deal with salary;

1. Raw salary, ignore players traded out. This results in it looking like a bad contract.

2. Take the salary, minus the outgoing contracts for each year of the respective contracts. This results in Phaneuf being negative 4.2 Mil this year (what a deal!) and the 7 mil, 6.5, 6.5, 5.5 in subsequent years (overpaid starting next year) .

3. Take the full contract obligation of phaneuf, minus the full contact obligations of the outgoing players. So, ignoring the partial season, Phaneuf is owed 33 mil over 5 years (avg 6.6 per), Greening (3.2) Michalek (4) and Cowen (4.5) combined for 11.7, leaving a net obligation of 21.3 mil, or roughly 4.26 per season, plus of course 1 contract to replace Michalek, the only roster player moved, so lets call it a cool 5 mil per year (the actual calculation I think would have been slightly better because of last year, where the leafs had already paid Phaneuf's bonus, and you get more off the outgoing contracts offsetting things).

Now, you can choose whichever of the methods you want, but be honest with yourself and ask which one is likely the most practical for the sens organization when if comes to figuring out the budget and financial obligations? Option 1 makes very little sense, and in practice we know they don't do this (how many times have we heard deals need to be salary in for salary out?). Option two would make sense if the team decided to add lots of one year salary commitments for this year, which didn't happen, or was just looking to pocket the extra cash and funnel it away from the on ice roster. So we're left with option 3, a long term thinking approach.

If you still think that's mental gymnastics, that's fine. Personally, it seems like the only logical way for the team to approach the contract from a business sense. It would be different if we were a cap team, but that's not the reality this team lives in.

 

[NyQuil]

Stats as per Cap Friendly.

Dzingel at the cheap end of the spectrum coming in at $37,500 per point and Methot coming in at $1,225,000

And what's Anderson, Hammond and Condon's salary per point?

 

[Beville]

And what's Anderson, Hammond and Condon's salary per point?

Hey, I didn't make the website

(Anderson and Condon are +, Hammond is - - - -)

 

[Back in Black]

Ryan is the BIG reason it's skewed, 'cause he ain't scoring, and Phaneuf is overpaid for what he does.

The rest of the salaries are ok, and the SENS are doing fine!

 

[FlyingJ]

You can take a couple approaches wrt to Phaneuf's value, given that Ottawa is not a cap team, I'll focus on approaches that deal with salary;

1. Raw salary, ignore players traded out. This results in it looking like a bad contract.

2. Take the salary, minus the outgoing contracts for each year of the respective contracts. This results in Phaneuf being negative 4.2 Mil this year (what a deal!) and the 7 mil, 6.5, 6.5, 5.5 in subsequent years (overpaid starting next year) .

3. Take the full contract obligation of phaneuf, minus the full contact obligations of the outgoing players. So, ignoring the partial season, Phaneuf is owed 33 mil over 5 years (avg 6.6 per), Greening (3.2) Michalek (4) and Cowen (4.5) combined for 11.7, leaving a net obligation of 21.3 mil, or roughly 4.26 per season, plus of course 1 contract to replace Michalek, the only roster player moved, so lets call it a cool 5 mil per year (the actual calculation I think would have been slightly better because of last year, where the leafs had already paid Phaneuf's bonus, and you get more off the outgoing contracts offsetting things).

Now, you can choose whichever of the methods you want, but be honest with yourself and ask which one is likely the most practical for the sens organization when if comes to figuring out the budget and financial obligations? Option 1 makes very little sense, and in practice we know they don't do this (how many times have we heard deals need to be salary in for salary out?). Option two would make sense if the team decided to add lots of one year salary commitments for this year, which didn't happen, or was just looking to pocket the extra cash and funnel it away from the on ice roster. So we're left with option 3, a long term thinking approach.

If you still think that's mental gymnastics, that's fine. Personally, it seems like the only logical way for the team to approach the contract from a business sense. It would be different if we were a cap team, but that's not the reality this team lives in.

Except the problem with option 3 is it doesn't factor in raises to other players, which is where a large part of that money is going both this year and beyond. As well as the fact that the Sens had the option of walking away from all 3 contracts after this season. Bad asset management? Sure, but it gives you even more flexibility than taking on an aging Phaneuf's deal does.

And given what we know of the Sens, with a seeming "just make the playoffs" mentality every year, and just how tight the budget is (compounded by a Canadian dollar that's not at the level it was a few years ago), I think you're giving them way too much credit regarding planning long term, at least beyond 3 years. Especially given Phaneuf's age.

 

[NyQuil]

Hey, I didn't make the website

(Anderson and Condon are +, Hammond is - - - -)

I just think it's silly to evaluate defencemen by "cost-per-point".

 

[Micklebot]

Except the problem with option 3 is it doesn't factor in raises to other players, which is where a large part of that money is going both this year and beyond. As well as the fact that the Sens had the option of walking away from all 3 contracts after this season. Bad asset management? Sure, but it gives you even more flexibility than taking on an aging Phaneuf's deal does.

And given what we know of the Sens, with a seeming "just make the playoffs" mentality every year, and just how tight the budget is (compounded by a Canadian dollar that's not at the level it was a few years ago), I think you're giving them way too much credit regarding planning long term, at least beyond 3 years. Especially given Phaneuf's age.

What do raises to players not involved in the trade have to do with the cost to the team of the players involved in the trade? The reality is those other players were going to get raises regardless of this trade. I guess you could argue that without the trade, we'd have had to shed other contracts to keep Hoffman (or just lost him), for example, but isn't that part of why the Phaneuf trade was good value for us?

Canadian dollar struggling would have happened with our without trading for Phaneuf, why does it impact the value of that trade to the team? This could shrink our budget, but it doesn't change how much Phaneuf will cost us, nor how much an equivalent player would cost us.

If there is anyone doing mental gymnastics here, it appears to be you.

Having said that, I have no issues with you saying you'd have preferred to not do the trade, and just walk away from Michalek, Greening, and Cowen after this year. We certainly would be a worse team right now had we gone that route, but maybe we could have become a better team for the next 4 years. This option would mean we keep all of Methot, Ceci and Karlsson with no need to expose one in the expansion draft, and could commence looking for a top 4 Dman starting 2017, though it may have resulted in the team rushing Chabot.

I also find it curious that you think me saying they likely consider their financial obligations over the duration of all the contracts involved is giving them too much credit in terms of long term planning; this would be the bare minimum any competent business should do, imo.

As for how Phaneuf will fair by the time he turns 35, who knows. There have been plenty of similar caliber dmen play in the top 4 at that age though; Kuba, Beauchemin, Markov, Timonen, Campbell, Kronwall, Vishnovski, ect.

I think Phaneuf's speed has already taken it's biggest hit, so I don't expect it to get much worse, as he's a bit of fitness freak, and speed was never his game. I could see him at 35 as still being a better version of Kuba circa 2011-12, though you never know how players will regress, the point is you can't automatically write him off just because of age. He won't be worth his cap hit if that happens, but he could easily still be worth his pro-rated opportunity cost.

 

[Beville]

I just think it's silly to evaluate defencemen by "cost-per-point".

Oh of course, I agree, I was just stating who as at both ends of the spectrum that's all!

 

[NyQuil]

Oh of course, I agree, I was just stating who as at both ends of the spectrum that's all!

I'm just ranting and raving like the old man I am.

 

[Xspyrit]

Originally Posted by FlyingJ View Post
The mental gymnastics here...

I'm assuming you're factoring in the contracts the Leafs took from the Sens: Michalek, Greening, and Cowen. But you're ignoring the fact that all of those contracts would be up after this season anyways. So the Sens saved a bit of money down the stretch last season, and a decent chunk this season. That's it. After that, it's all on the Sens.

And by the end of that contract, do you really think Phaneuf's play is going to be worth $5.5 million as a 35 year old? I guess anything can happen, but I wouldn't take that bet.

There is no "mental gymnastics here", I am a business man and I see the things rationally from a simple money standpoint. Money in, money out.

The salary that the Sens will have to pay to Dion for his 5.25 years with the team (~35.0) MINUS the (unwanted) salary that was traded to the Maple Leafs, that the Sens won't have to pay anymore (~5.0 + ~3.89 + ~5.43 = ~14.32) = real cost for Phaneuf, so about 20.68 for 5.25 years = 3.93 per year

If you can't see how good financially that move was for Ottawa, I have no idea what to tell you.

You want to see it only from a season standpoint? Ok then

1) Last year (1/4 of season), Sens saved about 600 000$ while having Phaneuf play for free

2) This year, Sens saved 4 200 000$ while having Phaneuf play for free

3) The last 4 years of Phaneuf's contract, he will play for 25 500 000$, average of 6.375 per season. I think that's a pill the Sens can swallow after saving a lot of money the first 1.25 years (~4.8 + free Top-4 D-man)

Originally Posted by FlyingJ View Post
Except the problem with option 3 is it doesn't factor in raises to other players, which is where a large part of that money is going both this year and beyond. As well as the fact that the Sens had the option of walking away from all 3 contracts after this season. Bad asset management? Sure, but it gives you even more flexibility than taking on an aging Phaneuf's deal does.

And given what we know of the Sens, with a seeming "just make the playoffs" mentality every year, and just how tight the budget is (compounded by a Canadian dollar that's not at the level it was a few years ago), I think you're giving them way too much credit regarding planning long term, at least beyond 3 years. Especially given Phaneuf's age.

The "especially given Phaneuf's age" makes me particularly laugh here... Dion is 31 and his contract expires at 35 y/o, an age where most non-marginal NHL players still play at a great/good/decent level. Phaneuf is already slow so the argument can't be that he is going to be slow. Like many D-men before, his playing style and overall game won't be affected much by growing older from 31 to 35 (unless he doesn't take care of himself, but bad news for you he is apparently a fitness freak). The HF notion of age is ridiculous. He could even decide to lose a bit of weight to be faster (a bit like Neil did)

As for the trade, Phaneuf replaces Cowen, Dzingel has a spot in the top-9 instead of Michalek. Greening was already buried.

Walking away from all 3 contracts after this season or before, the result would have still been 11.7 down the drain. This trade was just a creative way to repair 2 smaller mistakes (Cowen and Greening) to have a clear upgrade (Cowen -> Phaneuf) and opening a roster spot for a younger healthier player (Michalek for Dzingel)

Anyway, sorry but I don't see any valid argument here

If there is anyone doing mental gymnastics here, it appears to be you.

hahaha this.

 

[danielpalfredsson]

Turning that money that could not be unspent into a much more useful piece in Phaneuf was a brilliant move, and probably the best possibly realistic scenario that the Sens could have hoped for.

When judging bad contracts, I'd still not consider him a bargain because he is still a product of the sunk costs traded for him.

Don't mistake this as me being in the "omg we cant win iwth phaneuf and ryan making 14M" boat. Aside from being handcuffed with a 68M budget, and outside of things the team cannot control like injuries, we have significantly more good than bad with our salaries.

 

[BobbyRyan]

Remember that Phaneuf isn't costing us his cap hit. He has a backloaded contract, and the Leafs took care of the expensive years.

Phaneuf Salary:

16/17: $7.5 m
17/18: $ 7m
18/19: $ 7m
19/20: $ 6.5m
20/21: $ 5.5m

Average annual salary = $ 6.7 m

So, there's essentially no savings on his cap hit.

 

[FlyingJ]

What do raises to players not involved in the trade have to do with the cost to the team of the players involved in the trade? The reality is those other players were going to get raises regardless of this trade. I guess you could argue that without the trade, we'd have had to shed other contracts to keep Hoffman (or just lost him), for example, but isn't that part of why the Phaneuf trade was good value for us?

In the short term, it's fine. Potential issues downt the line, especially when someone like Stone needs another contract, or we're forced to lose, oh let's say Methot (but keep Ceci in a desperate hope he'll blossom into something more merely because he's young)? Or how about Turris or Karlsson when their deals are up?

Canadian dollar struggling would have happened with our without trading for Phaneuf, why does it impact the value of that trade to the team? This could shrink our budget, but it doesn't change how much Phaneuf will cost us, nor how much an equivalent player would cost us.

If there is anyone doing mental gymnastics here, it appears to be you.

Because it's a long term deal worth a decent amount of coin (and paid in American dollars) no matter how you slice it. It's a higher risk, all for a late attempt at a playoff push last year and perhaps 2 years of top 4 calibre play. More on that later.

As for the last comment, quite becoming of a mod. [mod: criticize the post not the poster]

Having said that, I have no issues with you saying you'd have preferred to not do the trade, and just walk away from Michalek, Greening, and Cowen after this year. We certainly would be a worse team right now had we gone that route, but maybe we could have become a better team for the next 4 years. This option would mean we keep all of Methot, Ceci and Karlsson with no need to expose one in the expansion draft, and could commence looking for a top 4 Dman starting 2017, though it may have resulted in the team rushing Chabot.

And what have we gotten in the interim? Another year of playoff-bubble status? Chabot is the only real risk, but given how reluctant Boucher was to play him, I could see them going with Claesson out of camp and sending Chabot down to the Q.

I also find it curious that you think me saying they likely consider their financial obligations over the duration of all the contracts involved is giving them too much credit in terms of long term planning; this would be the bare minimum any competent business should do, imo.

I don't think they really know what their operating budget is going to be much in advance. They do what they deem necessary to keep players at the time then work around it.

And with Phaneuf, it reeks of Murray's last grasp to get this team into the playoffs...where they likely would have been knocked out in round 1 anyways. A short term solution to get Euge and the team some extra coin immediately.

As for how Phaneuf will fair by the time he turns 35, who knows. There have been plenty of similar caliber dmen play in the top 4 at that age though; Kuba, Beauchemin, Markov, Timonen, Campbell, Kronwall, Vishnovski, ect.

I think Phaneuf's speed has already taken it's biggest hit, so I don't expect it to get much worse, as he's a bit of fitness freak, and speed was never his game. I could see him at 35 as still being a better version of Kuba circa 2011-12, though you never know how players will regress, the point is you can't automatically write him off just because of age. He won't be worth his cap hit if that happens, but he could easily still be worth his pro-rated opportunity cost.

How many of those guys had played as many games by age 31 as Phaneuf has? Or have played as many as Phaneuf (barring injury) will by 35? There's only so much fitness training can do to help with the wears and tears of that many miles on the body. Hell, guys like Campbell, Vishnovsky, Markov, Timonen, and Kuba never played as hard-hitting a game as Phaneuf has. That takes its toll too. Most of those guys played a more skilled game, or were always better skaters than Phaneuf. Additionally, Ppayers who continue to contribute well into their 30s and even towards 40 are exceptions, not the norm. So yeah, you can't completely write him off, but it's something you have to consider, and realize that if you're expecting him to still be a good contributor at that age, you're betting against the norm.

Also, seriously, Kronwall has been good as a 35 year old? You haven't watched much Red Wings hockey the last season and a bit, have you? As for Kuba, playing with Karlsson helps. Pray tell, what happened a year after he left Ottawa?

 

[FlyingJ]

There is no "mental gymnastics here", I am a business man and I see the things rationally from a simple money standpoint. Money in, money out.

You proclaim this quite often. "I'm the rational one, everyone who disagrees with me is not!" My favourite was when you went around calling anyone who criticized players or Murray "paranoid" despite you clearly having no idea what the word meant. Closely followed by your argument that "rebuilds take between 11-17 years, so stop criticizing Murray!" You're a master of mental gymnastics, and your passive-agressive jabs and belittling of other posters gets a free pass here because you kiss up to the mods enough.

The salary that the Sens will have to pay to Dion for his 5.25 years with the team (~35.0) MINUS the (unwanted) salary that was traded to the Maple Leafs, that the Sens won't have to pay anymore (~5.0 + ~3.89 + ~5.43 = ~14.32) = real cost for Phaneuf, so about 20.68 for 5.25 years = 3.93 per year

If you can't see how good financially that move was for Ottawa, I have no idea what to tell you.

You want to see it only from a season standpoint? Ok then

1) Last year (1/4 of season), Sens saved about 600 000$ while having Phaneuf play for free

2) This year, Sens saved 4 200 000$ while having Phaneuf play for free

3) The last 4 years of Phaneuf's contract, he will play for 25 500 000$, average of 6.375 per season. I think that's a pill the Sens can swallow after saving a lot of money the first 1.25 years (~4.8 + free Top-4 D-man)

"Play for free?" They saved $4.2 million, most of which goes towards player raises. And Phaneuf's salary will definitely have an impact on other raises/new contracts down the line. What they did was pay Phaneuf money they were already going to spend and must still spend with him here. There is no "playing for free" here.

The "especially given Phaneuf's age" makes me particularly laugh here... Dion is 31 and his contract expires at 35 y/o, an age where most non-marginal NHL players still play at a great/good/decent level. Phaneuf is already slow so the argument can't be that he is going to be slow. Like many D-men before, his playing style and overall game won't be affected much by growing older from 31 to 35 (unless he doesn't take care of himself, but bad news for you he is apparently a fitness freak). The HF notion of age is ridiculous. He could even decide to lose a bit of weight to be faster (a bit like Neil did)

What league do you watch? Guys who are still good contributors at 35 are the exceptions, not the norms. For every one player you can name who is, there are exponentially more who either never made it to that age playing in the NHL, or who are minor role players.

And seriously, you don't think it's possible for Phaneuf to get slower because he's already slow? The lack of logic here is frightening.

And as I pointed out earlier, Phaneuf has a lot of miles on his body already, even relative to his age. And given his style of play (harder hitting), that wears a person down no matter how much of a fitness freak they are.

As for the trade, Phaneuf replaces Cowen, Dzingel has a spot in the top-9 instead of Michalek. Greening was already buried.

Walking away from all 3 contracts after this season or before, the result would have still been 11.7 down the drain. This trade was just a creative way to repair 2 smaller mistakes (Cowen and Greening) to have a clear upgrade (Cowen -> Phaneuf) and opening a roster spot for a younger healthier player (Michalek for Dzingel)

Anyway, sorry but I don't see any valid argument here[/QUOTE]

What this trade is amounts to a stop-gap solution for a playoff bubble team whose mentality is just to get in. Basically what the Sens have largely been since Murray became GM (save one year they finished 5th in the East off the strength of an 11 game win streak. A streak where if they'd gone even 6-5 during that stretch they would have missed the playoffs).

 

[Micklebot]

In the short term, it's fine. Potential issues downt the line, especially when someone like Stone needs another contract, or we're forced to lose, oh let's say Methot (but keep Ceci in a desperate hope he'll blossom into something more merely because he's young)? Or how about Turris or Karlsson when their deals are up?

Because it's a long term deal worth a decent amount of coin (and paid in American dollars) no matter how you slice it. It's a higher risk, all for a late attempt at a playoff push last year and perhaps 2 years of top 4 calibre play. More on that later.

As for the last comment, quite becoming of a mod. Then again, if I got as much brown-nosing from Xspyrit as you do...



And what have we gotten in the interim? Another year of playoff-bubble status? Chabot is the only real risk, but given how reluctant Boucher was to play him, I could see them going with Claesson out of camp and sending Chabot down to the Q.



I don't think they really know what their operating budget is going to be much in advance. They do what they deem necessary to keep players at the time then work around it.

And with Phaneuf, it reeks of Murray's last grasp to get this team into the playoffs...where they likely would have been knocked out in round 1 anyways. A short term solution to get Euge and the team some extra coin immediately.



How many of those guys had played as many games by age 31 as Phaneuf has? Or have played as many as Phaneuf (barring injury) will by 35? There's only so much fitness training can do to help with the wears and tears of that many miles on the body. Hell, guys like Campbell, Vishnovsky, Markov, Timonen, and Kuba never played as hard-hitting a game as Phaneuf has. That takes its toll too. Most of those guys played a more skilled game, or were always better skaters than Phaneuf. Additionally, Ppayers who continue to contribute well into their 30s and even towards 40 are exceptions, not the norm. So yeah, you can't completely write him off, but it's something you have to consider, and realize that if you're expecting him to still be a good contributor at that age, you're betting against the norm.

Also, seriously, Kronwall has been good as a 35 year old? You haven't watched much Red Wings hockey the last season and a bit, have you? As for Kuba, playing with Karlsson helps. Pray tell, what happened a year after he left Ottawa?

Again, it's pretty simple, Ottawa deals in dollars, not cap, so year to year salary or cap hits aren't as relevant as it can put aside money saved this year for expenses next year. So when you are evaluating whether or not the Phaneuf trade is good value for the team, you are better off doing it based on total contracts in and out value. If you don't think he'll be worth the, what was it, 4.6 mil average net cost per year of the deal (once all the outgoing dead money are removed) in the last couple years of his contract, that's fine, but that's another issue.

Heck, if we're really concerned about the last year of his deal being really bad, we could buy him out at that point and his average including the buyout would be just over 5 mil per season for 4 seasons. Buying out any more brings it up too high to be beneficial though.

Basically, if he can play like a 5 mil dollar player or better for the first 4 years we can buy out the last year and we're good. If he can play like a 4.25 mil dollar player for 5 years, we're good. If he plays any better than that, it's good value. Any worse, and it's bad value.

In the end though, we need a Dman that can play that role, so arguing that he takes up financial flexibility only works if we can replace him for cheaper.

Edit: Just for clarity, I'm coming from the position that a player's value is determined by via relative production vs other players in his position and his relative salary vs those players. With this as my starting point, changes that affect every player in the league (like the Canadian dollar plummeting) don't affect his value, as it would be the same with every other player. Similarly, needing to re-sign other players on the team don't affect his value for the same reason; these variable may affect if we can afford a player of that cost, but it changes nothing wrt his relative value when compared to an alternative player.

 

[JD1]

Basically what the Sens have largely been since Murray became GM (save one year they finished 5th in the East off the strength of an 11 game win streak. A streak where if they'd gone even 6-5 during that stretch they would have missed the playoffs).

real credible stuff right there. the NHL plays 82 games. Teams have both winning streaks and losing streaks in a season. If you want to complain go ahead but at least do so credibly. If we take away their best stretch of the season they don't make the playoffs. That's ridiculous.

Philly won 10 this year. Take away that and they are a lottery team. Columbus won 16, without that they are outside the playoffs. You see how ridiculous that sounds?

 

[aragorn]

Neil's fine in his limited role. The bigger plus isn't his charity work, but is probably what he brings to the room. The team made a very obvious attempt at adding more leadership and experience this summer with the additions of Kelly and Brassard, both guys that are known for their leadership qualities and have been deep in the playoffs multiple times in recent history.

Neil's overpaid on paper for someone who plays 6-7 minutes a game. But there's a tax on veteran leadership. I would guess that he probably brings a significant enough plus off the ice that paying him 1.5M vs one of our 14th-16th forwards up at 800k is worth it. Not to mention his unique skillset as one of the last pugilists.

Ryan is the BIG reason it's skewed, 'cause he ain't scoring, and Phaneuf is overpaid for what he does.

The rest of the salaries are ok, and the SENS are doing fine!

Exactly.

I'm just ranting and raving like the old man I am.

Hey, I resemble that!

 

[Rooverick*]

Ryan = 7.25 million (32-7-7-14)
Turris = 4.0 million (37-12-13-25)
Hoffman = 3.8 million (33-10-15-25)
Stone = 3.5 million (36-11-18-28)
Brassard = 3.0 million (37-8-9-17)
Smith = 2.35 million (35-8-7-15)
Neil = 1.5 million (36-1-1-2)
Lazar = 989K (17-0-0-0)
Kelly = 900K (37-2-5-7)
Pageau = 900K (37-4-9-13)
Pyatt = 800K (37-4-5-9)
Dzingle = 750K (37-8-12-20)

Phanuef = 7.5 million (37-5-10-15)
Karlsson = 7.0 million (37-7-25-32)
Methot = 4.9 million (33-0-4-4)
Ceci = 2.25 million (37-1-2-3)
Boro = 1.1 million (35-1-1-2)
Wideman = 800K (32-1-7-8)
______

- The only player out preforming his contract is Dzingle

- Karlsson, Turris, Brassard, Smith, Pageau, Pyatt, Hoffman and Stone are preforming well for the money they make. Brassard is paid like a third liner and he's putting up third line numbers

We are wasting millions of dollars on no offense.
Ryan, Neil, Lazar, Phanuef, Methot, Ceci and Boro make a combined:

25.489 million
For
15 Goals

That's terrible

Terrible post.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

Sens is Fuhr and Fuhr thinks the New York Post is worthwhile.

Nuff said.

 

[Pierre from Orleans]

you proclaim this quite often. "i'm the rational one, everyone who disagrees with me is not!" my favourite was when you went around calling anyone who criticized players or murray "paranoid" despite you clearly having no idea what the word meant. Closely followed by your argument that "rebuilds take between 11-17 years, so stop criticizing murray!" you're a master of mental gymnastics, and your passive-agressive jabs and belittling of other posters gets a free pass here because you kiss up to the mods enough.

qft.

 

[Xspyrit]

Well, sorry I didn't see this since I can't see your posts but I found it by luck! Since you are attacking me, I guess I'll play the game and defend myself

You proclaim this quite often. "I'm the rational one, everyone who disagrees with me is not!"

I never said that. If people are rational then we can have an intelligent discussion (what I am looking for), agree or not. But yes, I call out pure biased haters who have no substance and I have absolutely no problem doing it.

My favourite was when you went around calling anyone who criticized players or Murray "paranoid" despite you clearly having no idea what the word meant.

http://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/conditions/paranoia-and-delusional-disorders

Paranoia involves intense anxious or fearful feelings and thoughts often related to persecution, threat, or conspiracy. Paranoia occurs in many mental disorders, but is most often present in psychotic disorders. Paranoia can become delusions, when irrational thoughts and beliefs become so fixed that nothing (including contrary evidence) can convince a person that what they think or feel is not true. When a person has paranoia or delusions, but no other symptoms (like hearing or seeing things that aren't there), they might have what is called a delusional disorder. Because only thoughts are impacted, a person with delusional disorder can usually work and function in everyday life, however, their lives may be limited and isolated.

I stand by what I said. A certain amount of posters are paranoid. Factual evidence can't help them getting out of their biased hyperbolic ways.

Closely followed by your argument that "rebuilds take between 11-17 years, so stop criticizing Murray!

I find that trying to twist people's words is a bit weak but if that's what float your boat...

All rebuilds take a different amount of time. I was saying that people should be a bit more patient before proclaiming it as a failure as the Sens were in their 5th year, and then I named rebuilds like LA and Chicago, which took a long longer...

" You're a master of mental gymnastics, and your passive-agressive jabs and belittling of other posters gets a free pass here because you kiss up to the mods enough.

I never "kissed up" any mod , I get quite a bit of infractions. Lately I got 3 in some kind of "social experiment". I tried to call out some posters the exact same way that they were calling out a player. Looks like it is not permitted My conclusion is that I find ridiculous that people here can flame out players as they want because we assume that they have no account on HF or are not reading

As for your assessment, maybe you take it like that but I need to remind you that none of this is personal. It's only related to hockey posts on a hockey forum. I am NOT insulting people (but get quite a bit of insults though ). I am calling out people who are posting crap about hockey players and AFAIK I have the right to do that. People are at times very hard on players/management/coaches, do you expect me to be soft? They are people too and I choose to defend them over random people on the internet. Clearly, I am taking the players side. I always take the side of people who accomplishes things rather than people who sit on their ass whining at everything, that you can be sure.

So, you can perceive it the way you want, interpret it like I am doing this or that, it's up to you. Reality is I have nothing against anybody on this site, just calling out some people's baseless opinions. Nothing harmful really. I know I have my haters because I can turn their biased opinions into ridicule but I also have a lot of supporters and I receive appreciation private messages on a regular basis so I must not be the Evil like you think I am

You're being quite the critic here with an holier-than-thou attitude, but what do you think you are doing here exactly? (and seriously, every time you quote me you are flaming me out like crazy! hahaha)

Matthew 7:3 Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to notice the beam in your own eye?

"Play for free?" They saved $4.2 million, most of which goes towards player raises. And Phaneuf's salary will definitely have an impact on other raises/new contracts down the line. What they did was pay Phaneuf money they were already going to spend and must still spend with him here. There is no "playing for free" here.

Looks like you didn't get it. I was doing the analysis year per year. I have always done it for the whole 5.25 years (average ~ 4 millions per season) but then you were talking about this season, next season, etc.

What league do you watch? Guys who are still good contributors at 35 are the exceptions, not the norms. For every one player you can name who is, there are exponentially more who either never made it to that age playing in the NHL, or who are minor role players.

Oops, looks like you missed another curve!

I said "most non-marginal NHL players", what do you think it means?

And seriously, you don't think it's possible for Phaneuf to get slower because he's already slow? The lack of logic here is frightening.

If he doesn't get leg injuries or doesn't put more weight, I don't see a "logical" reason why he would become slower from 31 to 35. Phaneuf is a bull on skates. He is built like a truck. Actually, he could realistically sacrifice a bit of mass to gain a bit of speed, like Chris Neil did, I repeat.

I am not known for somebody who lacks logic. Actually, I am a bit annoying with logic at times apparently, but nice try.

What this trade is amounts to a stop-gap solution for a playoff bubble team whose mentality is just to get in. Basically what the Sens have largely been since Murray became GM (save one year they finished 5th in the East off the strength of an 11 game win streak. A streak where if they'd gone even 6-5 during that stretch they would have missed the playoffs).

I think JD1 already pointed out how ridiculous that win streak argument was, but for the rest, I would just say welcome to Ottawa. The only way I could see them contending is to strike gold on several prospects in a short period of time, until they are not able to pay them all again. Under the cap era, the Ottawa Senators are a team that has to fight to stay competitive every year and "just get in". If you want a team that doesn't face that kind of reality, you have the choice with teams nearby like the Habs, Rangers or Leafs. They can spend to the cap, spend money on staff, buy out contracts, bury them, attract good UFAs, make trades with taking back salary, put more money on scouting/development, etc. It's just a matter of accepting reality or not.

With all that being said, I propose "peace"