News Article: Dorion says all players but ek and stone available

Langdon Alger

Registered User
Apr 19, 2006
24,777
12,912


giphy.gif


But all the guys on TSN 1200 say Ceci has value, he’s young, a right handed defenceman and plays lots of minutes. If you were to trade him, you’d get a great return.

Their words, not mine.
 

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,145
30,366
you missedan Neil and Lazar contributing to the poor regular season metrics. We added Stalberg, Wingels, Burrows and MacArthur heading into the playoffs.

At the TDL we also ran into injury issues and never got healthy until the playoffs. That's how a guy like Kelly played all 82 games album only 2 in the playoffs.

That playoff team was a stronger deeper roster than the regular season. The notion that we were a bubble team that got lucky doesn't reflect the changes made late last year to strengthen what we had. The regular season roster accumulated 98 points and we were stronger than that heading into the playoffs.

This year I thought we were starting weaker than that playoff roster but stronger than the regular season roster. Didn't expect a total collapse from Anderson. Didn't expect the drop off in play from EK. I figured we'd hang around just inside the cut line all year and then see what upgrades were available at the TDL.

as for Maclean personally I liked him. I preferred the style we played under him. But he was a guy that clearly lost the room with several veteran players coming out with issues about a before and after scenario. He changed. Who knows why but the new Walrus got tuned out.

Back to Boucher I just don't think the horses are there this year.

I thought Montreal was in bad shape having lost 3 of their 6 day from last year.

Arguably we've lost 4 of 6.

And our goaltending to boot.

Fair enough, at least here your talking about more than just how far we made it. My issue though is that even if we accept that the roster was better in the playoffs, the same issues happened. We sat back too early in games, we gave up leads, we sucked on the PP.

I just don't see support for Boucher as a coach so much as just saying the roster was better or worse and that's the explanation of the results. Heck, go back to the playoff GDT, and it's not like confidence was ever all that high. There were lots of complaints then too.

I do agree that the team wasn't just lucky, there was more to it than that, they had some great performances, but, I'm not convinced that the team as assembled for the playoffs was better than say Washington, or the Penguins, or Columbus. We weren't clearly better than Toronto imo, and a healthy Boston team could have given us trouble. I liked us against NYR, more because of the way we matched up though. Basically, we could beat any of those teams but weren't a sure thing by any stretch, and in many cases, imo were the underdogs. Could we repeat if it was all done again, sure, but I think the odds are against it.
 

JD1

Registered User
Sep 12, 2005
15,988
9,555
Fair enough, at least here your talking about more than just how far we made it. My issue though is that even if we accept that the roster was better in the playoffs, the same issues happened. We sat back too early in games, we gave up leads, we sucked on the PP.

I just don't see support for Boucher as a coach so much as just saying the roster was better or worse and that's the explanation of the results. Heck, go back to the playoff GDT, and it's not like confidence was ever all that high. There were lots of complaints then too.

I do agree that the team wasn't just lucky, there was more to it than that, they had some great performances, but, I'm not convinced that the team as assembled for the playoffs was better than say Washington, or the Penguins, or Columbus. We weren't clearly better than Toronto imo, and a healthy Boston team could have given us trouble. I liked us against NYR, more because of the way we matched up though. Basically, we could beat any of those teams but weren't a sure thing by any stretch, and in many cases, imo were the underdogs. Could we repeat if it was all done again, sure, but I think the odds are against it.

well I don't think we were just lucky either. Better than some of those other teams? Hard to say we were better, hard to say we were worse. We were close and these things have a history of going either way. What I don't buy is that there was some kind of parting of the red sea and only by the luck of god did we advance. Yes Boston could have been trickier with a healthier D. With a healthier d we may never have seen McAvoy though. And we beat them 4-0 in the regular season. Point is, it wasn't all luck.

The one thing I can fault Dorion for is presuming he knew all along that mac was not coming back, he should have arranged for another legit top 9 guy. Budget likely played a role there. Well that and for the goalies. Don't like either. And you and I have kicked around the Condon and Hammond debate plenty.
 

Nac Mac Feegle

wee & free
Jun 10, 2011
34,829
9,252
Thanks for making my point.

Turris knew his time was up in Ottawa, by seeing all the young Centers in Belleville plus Brown in the OHL, so he refused to budge, and did not let Ottawa match the Predators offer.

IF he wanted to stay in Ottawa, it clearly was his responsibility to let Ottawa match the offer, not Dorions'.

I could make the argument that he pretty much orchestrated his departure from Ottawa, but you (not only) won't see the other side of the coin, you refuse to even acknowledge there is even another side to the coin.

Serious question...is English your first language, because everything I wrote destroys your "point," not reinforces it.

6x6 in Nashville gives Turris MORE money in his pocket than 6x6 in Ottawa. So Ottawa would have to offer MORE than 6x6 to "match" Nashville.
 

Sens of Anarchy

Registered User
Jul 9, 2013
65,007
49,538
Serious question...is English your first language, because everything I wrote destroys your "point," not reinforces it.

6x6 in Nashville gives Turris MORE money in his pocket than 6x6 in Ottawa. So Ottawa would have to offer MORE than 6x6 to "match" Nashville.

I belive they speak NAINAMOR in AINAVLYSNART.. what ever it is it rarely makes much sense
 

JD1

Registered User
Sep 12, 2005
15,988
9,555
Serious question...is English your first language, because everything I wrote destroys your "point," not reinforces it.

6x6 in Nashville gives Turris MORE money in his pocket than 6x6 in Ottawa. So Ottawa would have to offer MORE than 6x6 to "match" Nashville.
I wonder that about a few people here lol

taxes are an issue I suppose but I don't think we've seen a lot of players choosing to sign in one city over another because of taxes. yes there is a difference but I've never seen a player or agent come out and say that
 

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,145
30,366
I wonder that about a few people here lol

taxes are an issue I suppose but I don't think we've seen a lot of players choosing to sign in one city over another because of taxes. yes there is a difference but I've never seen a player or agent come out and say that

There was a study done a while ago about the correlation of state taxes and sports franchises winning records.

Here's the link, Analysis | Study: Blue-state politicians are undermining their home-state sports teams

Here's some excerpts,

Of course, for many politicians, reducing taxes is not just about sports. Conservative policymakers in particular often argue that reduced taxes help states' economies overall by attracting businesses and workers. Hembre draws the opposite conclusion from his research. State income taxes are modest enough that businesses can compensate workers for them, as baseball teams do. It is only when employers' payrolls are constrained — such as by salary caps in other big-league sports — that income tax becomes a real problem, but that is not an issue for most ordinary companies.
"For the most part, state officials should take [the data] as evidence that income-tax rates don’t hurt their labor markets in general," Hembre said. "What you see is that income taxes really hurt when a business isn’t able to directly compensate their workers for that extra income tax."

and

By contrast, the correlation between taxes and teams' performance was clearest in the NBA.
Basketball teams in low-tax states win 4.5 more games a year than comparable teams in high-tax states. Statistically, it is as though teams in low-tax states were all playing with the equivalent of an elite player such as Draymond Green on the roster.

Not directly from a player or agents mouth, but in theory, a study like this eliminates the potential of players and agents wanting to avoid bad PR and not being entirely truthful. Not sure if this has been peer reviewed in any way, but an interesting read non the less.

My read on this isn't so much that they sign elsewhere because of taxes, but rather accept less because of them giving the team a competitive advantage. Players probably look for a team that's good fit above all else, and the dollars is secondary.
 

Nac Mac Feegle

wee & free
Jun 10, 2011
34,829
9,252
I wonder that about a few people here lol

taxes are an issue I suppose but I don't think we've seen a lot of players choosing to sign in one city over another because of taxes. yes there is a difference but I've never seen a player or agent come out and say that

My point was, that Turris accepting 6x6 from Ottawa isn't really a match. Ottawa would have to offer around 6x6.5...so it would be a different offer to give Kyle and equal amount of money in his pocket. Going from one of the lower tax states to a high tax province, you really can't offer the identical (6x6) deal and say you matched the Nashville offer. So the concept of Turris giving Ottawa the opportunity to offer the same deal can't really happen in this circumstance. If the other team was New York instead of Nashville, where taxes are a lot closer, then it would be more feasible to do that.
 

slamigo

Skate or Die!
Dec 25, 2007
6,430
3,811
Ottawa
I wonder that about a few people here lol

taxes are an issue I suppose but I don't think we've seen a lot of players choosing to sign in one city over another because of taxes. yes there is a difference but I've never seen a player or agent come out and say that

They don't say it publicly because they would be vilified. But it's true. In Canada, you'll basically give 50% to taxes on a salary that large. In Tennessee, there simply is no income tax. None. Property taxes are low and apparently you only pay taxes on investments, dividends, etc. There are federal taxes, but no state income tax. Tennessee is one of the lowest marginal tax states in the US.
 

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,145
30,366
They don't say it publicly because they would be vilified. But it's true. In Canada, you'll basically give 50% to taxes on a salary that large. In Tennessee, there simply is no income tax. None. Property taxes are low and apparently you only pay taxes on investments, dividends, etc. There are federal taxes, but no state income tax. Tennessee is one of the lowest marginal tax states in the US.


I found a ESPN article where they partnered with a sports tax expert to look at the take home pay of some NBA stars.

When $35M is really $15M: How much NBA stars actually earn

Of note, the did a Toronto and Memphis player, so that may be somewhat comparable to an Ottawa vs Nashville, though I have no idea about things like citizenship and offseason address, or any other things that could affect the results. Both guys were making about 28 mil, Lowrey, the Toronto player, was taking home about 42% of that, while Conley, the Memphis player, was taking home around 53.5%. In order for Lowry to take home the same amount, assuming the % take home were consistant, he'd need to get paid 7 mil more, or roughly 24% more. Now, there are some aspects that don't seem to be state tax driven contributing to that, like why is Conley getting back more escrow? I really don't know, and I won't hazard a guess, but it is interesting to see some of the differences in estimated take home pay.
 

SAK11

Registered User
Oct 4, 2011
1,632
640


Pretty much the same thing posted on the last page, except with a different twitter user's "funny" line about how Ceci now has no value.
People sure know how to spin "There haven't been too many calls about Ceci" to make it seem like Ceci has absolutely no value and no team wants him.
 

Sens of Anarchy

Registered User
Jul 9, 2013
65,007
49,538
Pretty much the same thing posted on the last page, except with a different twitter user's "funny" line about how Ceci now has no value.
People sure know how to spin "There haven't been too many calls about Ceci" to make it seem like Ceci has absolutely no value and no team wants him.

Its really hard to know what to believe about any of the reports that Sens leak to the media anyway regarding the interest levels and who might be available and who might not be.. I agree there is a lot of spin that results.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SAK11

Tnuoc Alucard

🇨🇦🔑🧲✈️🎲🥅🎱🍟🥨🌗
Sep 23, 2015
7,994
1,897
If Turris was willing to sign for 6/6 and we traded him, that was patently a stupid trade. Turris' only public comments suggest this was a possibility.

Turris' Camp never put 6/6 on the table ...... so if that what he was willing to take, to stay in Ottawa, how do you explain why he, or his agent, made this offer to the Senators???
 

FolignoQuantumLeap

Don't Hold The Door
Mar 16, 2009
31,084
7,399
Ottawa
Turris' Camp never put 6/6 on the table ...... so if that what he was willing to take, to stay in Ottawa, how do you explain why he, or his agent, made this offer to the Senators???
Because the Senators traded him before their negotiations got there. What is difficult to grasp here? He signed for 6x6. He was never offered it from the Sens.

The Sens weren't willing to pay market value because A. They're cheap. B. They're very poor in assessing NHL talent.
 

HSF

Registered User
Sep 3, 2008
26,058
7,601
Because the Senators traded him before their negotiations got there. What is difficult to grasp here? He signed for 6x6. He was never offered it from the Sens.

The Sens weren't willing to pay market value because A. They're cheap. B. They're very poor in assessing NHL talent.
you don't know this to be true
 

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,145
30,366
Turris' Camp never put 6/6 on the table ...... so if that what he was willing to take, to stay in Ottawa, how do you explain why he, or his agent, made this offer to the Senators???
We'll never know what he was willing to take because Dorion was never willing to budge off 5 years either.

The thing is, Turris and his agent aren't the ones who get to decide they are at an impasse and that it's time to seek out trade options. It's Dorion who decided a deal couldn't be made between the two parties before exploring a 6 year option. By deciding to trade Turris, Dorion is saying that he's made his best offer and it wasn't good enough for Turris. Well, in this case, Dorion's best offer appears to have been a 5 year deal, not a 6 year deal. Either that, or Dorion isn't doing his job very well.

Personally, I think Dorion valued the trade option more than signing Turris to a 6 year deal, otherwise, he'd have at the very least offered a 6 year deal. The alternative is that Dorion would have preferred to sign Turris to 6 years, but never bothered to try that. Not really a good look for Dorion if that's the case.
 

HSF

Registered User
Sep 3, 2008
26,058
7,601
Which part?

I know what he signed for.
I know six years was never offered.
I know they're cheap.
I know they are terrible at assessing NHL talent.
We don't know if Ottawa wanted to keep him or if Turris wanted to leave . We don't know why 6 years was never offered or if it was offered by both sides. Turris signed a 6 year deal mins after he traded. There seems to be a lot we don't know
 

Tnuoc Alucard

🇨🇦🔑🧲✈️🎲🥅🎱🍟🥨🌗
Sep 23, 2015
7,994
1,897
I belive they speak NAINAMOR in AINAVLYSNART.. what ever it is it rarely makes much sense


You've both missed the point I was making ............ and that's not surprising.

Some people here are arguing that if Turris took 6/6 from Nashville, then why didn't Ottawa offer him the same, if that was what it was going to take to keep him.

I just kept pointing out that 6/6 was never on the table, with negotiations with Ottawa, and that indicated his intentions of wanting to peruse UFA, or be traded.


It's almost the same mindset that Dorion could have gotten Methot back from the VGK, for a 2nd, because he was traded to Dallas for a 2nd. The VGK knew that Ottawa wanted Methot a whole lot more that any other team in the league, so obviously they would have asked for a lot more than a 2nd ................. but some people here just can't wrap their heads around that.
 

Tuna99

Registered User
Sep 26, 2009
14,715
6,804
Here we are arguing about what Turris said vs what Dorion said.

Melnyck got $25 million USD in expansion, 3 rounds of playoff hockey revenue and we still don’t have money to pay for Methot or Turris.

Melnyck is not the problem, not Turris’s agent. When Turris said he wanted to stay and Dorion wanted him I believe him. I also believe Turris when he said Melnyck wouldn’t pony up the money to sign him.

Melnyck is the problem. Not Turris
 

Tuna99

Registered User
Sep 26, 2009
14,715
6,804
You've both missed the point I was making ............ and that's not surprising.

Some people here are arguing that if Turris took 6/6 from Nashville, then why didn't Ottawa offer him the same, if that was what it was going to take to keep him.

I just kept pointing out that 6/6 was never on the table, with negotiations with Ottawa, and that indicated his intentions of wanting to peruse UFA, or be traded.


It's almost the same mindset that Dorion could have gotten Methot back from the VGK, for a 2nd, because he was traded to Dallas for a 2nd. The VGK knew that Ottawa wanted Methot a whole lot more that any other team in the league, so obviously they would have asked for a lot more than a 2nd ................. but some people here just can't wrap their heads around that.

So if Ottaw offered a 2nd and a 5th Vegas wouldn’t of taken it over Dallas because Vegas has a vendetta against larger Returns from ottawa because Ottawa wanted Methot, but not as bad as Dallas wanted him, so Vegas took less from Dallas because that makes sense???

This makes absolutely no sense. If Dorion had overpaid for every player he’s gotten, why not throw a late round pick in to get Methot back?
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->