Confirmed with Link: Duchene to OTT in three-team trade

[danielpalfredsson]

Stamkos is taking home more money, in Florida, at 8.5 M, than he would if he had signed for 12 M in the other places rumoured to be interested in him.

So on paper, it looked like a discount, but in real (take home) money he did not.

Exactly. That is one of the many reasons why it's not relevant as a comparable to Duchene signing in Ottawa. At the end of the day, it's a hometown discount cap wise because when looked at with the average team in mind, it is much lower than what a player of Stamkos' calibre would typically sign for based on the market.

Duchene might get very close to the same cap hit as Stamkos despite not being anywhere near the player Stamkos is, and there'll be nothing wrong with that because Stamkos' contract is not reflective of the play salary market the Senators have to deal with.

 

[Tnuoc Alucard]

Duchene might get very close to the same cap hit as Stamkos despite not being anywhere near the player Stamkos is, and there'll be nothing wrong with that because Stamkos' contract is not reflective of the play salary market the Senators have to deal with.

After watching Stamkos being a no-show, in general, in the playoffs........ and taking into consideration his injury history, I'd still take Duchene on the Senators over Stamkos.

 

[Sun God Nika]

After watching Stamkos being a no-show, in general, in the playoffs........ and taking into consideration his injury history, I'd still take Duchene on the Senators over Stamkos.

ok

 

[BankStreetParade]

The proof that we didn't want to sign them being that we didn't sign them? Technically, we made an offer to Hemsky, for example, and he refused. Same with Stalberg. Both minor pieces mind you, but we decided they priced themselves out of what we were willing to pay, which is fine. Turris was traded, presumably not because we didn't like him as a player (we were negotiating with him after all) but because presumably he priced himself out of what we were willing to pay, again, there's no problem with making that decision, but that's a player we presumably wanted to keep.

The claim that we've yet to not sign a guy we wanted to keep is a bit dubious imo, because it can really only apply in the way you appear to be using it to cases where a player rejects any offer we make, which btw, Alfredsson is a pretty clear example of if we are to believe the Murray/Melnyk claim of "blank cheque".

To me, it seems like Ottawa has looked at the results of the Bobby Ryan contract and decided that they don't want to be in that position anymore with the "star" players. I feel like they probably have carte blanche for the "superstars" like Karlsson, Stone and arguably Duchene. But it feels like the Turris', Hoffmans et al. of the world are part of the "star" player group where there's a certain number they just aren't willing to go past.

Some might think it's a cheap owner and maybe, ultimately, that is the case. But I really feel like building a truly competitive team requires some very difficult decision making especially when it comes to free agent value. We've seen several contracts on this team hamstring the overall spending capacity. And it doesn't take much. $1 million here, $750k there, $1.5 million here and next thing you know you've tied up a considerable chunk of money in underperforming/undeserving players when the more difficult decision would have been to sever ties or to trade that player.

I, for one, believe signing Turris to more than $5.5 million per season would have been a mistake. He's a second line center no matter how you look at it. Some people think it's because the owner is cheap. I don't know about all that. I'm not involved in the decision making but when you start paying guys like Turris $7+ million per year, you're kind of asking for trouble.

 

[Micklebot]

After watching Stamkos being a no-show, in general, in the playoffs........ and taking into consideration his injury history, I'd still take Duchene on the Senators over Stamkos.

Yeah, I'm much more comfortable with Duchene's 8 career playoff game sample than Stamkos' no show 16 pts in 17 games this year...

 

[Sensinitis]

Yeah, I'm much more comfortable with Duchene's 8 career playoff game sample than Stamkos' no show 16 pts in 17 games this year...

Did you watch the games?

He was a non-factor 5 on 5... put up a very sad performance in game 7 as well.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

Sure, but if you had the option to join a company and work with colleagues you liked and respected that may sway your decision. I am doubtful that you have similar options as a pending UFA in the NHL.

Very true and good point.

But if work is productive and I enjoy my job and where I live I might not want to change everything because there's a dick or two or three (and there always are) at work.

 

[Silencio]

Yeah, I'm much more comfortable with Duchene's 8 career playoff game sample than Stamkos' no show 16 pts in 17 games this year...

There's also that 3 points in 10 elimination games sample....

 

[Ice-Tray]

The proof that we didn't want to sign them being that we didn't sign them? Technically, we made an offer to Hemsky, for example, and he refused. Same with Stalberg. Both minor pieces mind you, but we decided they priced themselves out of what we were willing to pay, which is fine. Turris was traded, presumably not because we didn't like him as a player (we were negotiating with him after all) but because presumably he priced himself out of what we were willing to pay, again, there's no problem with making that decision, but that's a player we presumably wanted to keep.

The claim that we've yet to not sign a guy we wanted to keep is a bit dubious imo, because it can really only apply in the way you appear to be using it to cases where a player rejects any offer we make, which btw, Alfredsson is a pretty clear example of if we are to believe the Murray/Melnyk claim of "blank cheque".

Let's just preface this with 'in my opinion', which should be a given seeing as how everything posted is an opinion given the lack 'proof' of basically anything. I mean people here often discount the words of people directly involved in an event in favour of their own opinions, so the idea of 'proof' is seemingly in the eye of the beholder my friend.

Exactly, we didn't WANT to sign Turris to a large, long term contract because he wasn't a player we wanted to build around, not that we COULDN'T afford to pay him. He was simply not worth it to the franchise, and I for one am happy we didn't. We do have to mindful of expensive long term contracts whether the budget never increase or we grow to be a cap team at the time where we have a contending team. The difference is that some feel it's a financial restraint from the top, rather than a hockey decision made by the GM. We have a budget to work within, but we hear often that EM gives the ok when PD wants to make a splash.

Look, we try not to overpay bottom 6 guys and complimentary pieces and we're cheap, and when we sign complimentary pieces for more than we'd have like, we're stupid. Looking back we have signed all of the core players that we have wanted to pay big money for, and traded away for assets, those that we don't. Your examples were a couple complimentary players that aren't really any better than what we have now, are you really surprised we didn't sign them?

I thought my point was pretty clear, so either it isn't or you're being purposefully difficult, but let me clarify: We have not let a player that we have wanted to keep go because we COULDN'T afford to pay him, but we have let players go because we didn't WANT to meet their salary demands, much like every single other team in the league. If you want to discuss, let's look at core players, not fringe guys that every team let go every year. Our player costs have increased when we have needed to sign a big name player

Also, Alfie is a different situation because he wanted to get paid for the past year in addition to the future year and THAT was the sticking point. He didn't want 'fair market value' he wanted that X2 almost. Once it was clear that he was actually leaving we can see EM realizing that he should have just paid but it seemed it was too late. Again, we didn't lose Alfie because we couldn't afford him.

I don't see any issues signing Duchene or Stone, and EK presents his own issue given that he might ask for too big a portion of the team pie. The reality is that 2 elite defends at 6 million a year could be just as good if not better for the team than one 12 million guy. Can we pay EK? Sure, but is it a good idea to pay him that much? That's the issue in my opinion.

 

[FolignoQuantumLeap]

Let's just preface this with 'in my opinion', which should be a given seeing as how everything posted is an opinion given the lack 'proof' of basically anything. I mean people here often discount the words of people directly involved in an event in favour of their own opinions, so the idea of 'proof' is seemingly in the eye of the beholder my friend.

Exactly, we didn't WANT to sign Turris to a large, long term contract because he wasn't a player we wanted to build around, not that we COULDN'T afford to pay him. He was simply not worth it to the franchise, and I for one am happy we didn't. We do have to mindful of expensive long term contracts whether the budget never increase or we grow to be a cap team at the time where we have a contending team. The difference is that some feel it's a financial restraint from the top, rather than a hockey decision made by the GM. We have a budget to work within, but we hear often that EM gives the ok when PD wants to make a splash.

Look, we try not to overpay bottom 6 guys and complimentary pieces and we're cheap, and when we sign complimentary pieces for more than we'd have like, we're stupid. Looking back we have signed all of the core players that we have wanted to pay big money for, and traded away for assets, those that we don't. Your examples were a couple complimentary players that aren't really any better than what we have now, are you really surprised we didn't sign them?

I thought my point was pretty clear, so either it isn't or you're being purposefully difficult, but let me clarify: We have not let a player that we have wanted to keep go because we COULDN'T afford to pay him, but we have let players go because we didn't WANT to meet their salary demands, much like every single other team in the league. If you want to discuss, let's look at core players, not fringe guys that every team let go every year. Our player costs have increased when we have needed to sign a big name player

Also, Alfie is a different situation because he wanted to get paid for the past year in addition to the future year and THAT was the sticking point. He didn't want 'fair market value' he wanted that X2 almost. Once it was clear that he was actually leaving we can see EM realizing that he should have just paid but it seemed it was too late. Again, we didn't lose Alfie because we couldn't afford him.

I don't see any issues signing Duchene or Stone, and EK presents his own issue given that he might ask for too big a portion of the team pie. The reality is that 2 elite defends at 6 million a year could be just as good if not better for the team than one 12 million guy. Can we pay EK? Sure, but is it a good idea to pay him that much? That's the issue in my opinion.

This will be a fun post to revisit 12 months from now when Hoffman, Dzingel, Duchene and Karlsson are all playing for other teams while Anderson, Condon, Smith and Ryan remain.

Also, think about what you just wrote and consider not re-acquiring Methot, dealing picks to save money on Hammond, Brassardx2 and Hemsky.

 

[Gil Gunderson]

Who are these 2 elite defencemen that come at 6 million a piece?

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

Source to this rumour?

Also to add just cause dudes are swedish doesn't mean they are best friends loool

Thats like saying Duchene will be pissed if we trade Ceci cause they are both canadian

Not at all.

Look at it this way. Picture yourself as a professional soccer player in Italy. Now imagine, there's only two other guys on the entire team who's first language is English, and who grew up in North America. Even if they aren't your 'best buddies,' you will naturally gravitate to them a little bit because you share more in common. A guy from Germany will have no idea what you're talking about when you say you're craving a poutine. A guy from Britain won't know about the culture around tailgating before a big game.

Having someone who shares that familiarity and background when you're surrounded by a different culture is very comforting to a lot of people.

 

[Mr Hat]

After watching Stamkos being a no-show, in general, in the playoffs........ and taking into consideration his injury history, I'd still take Duchene on the Senators over Stamkos.

Agreed. Stamkos career playoff stats are underwhelming overall but when facing elimination he is a complete ghost.

Karl and Duchene both play with emotion that is nearly impossible to replace at their talent level. Stamkos is a regular season darling but is soft as baby shit when the season is on the line.

 

[JungleBeat]

Agreed. Stamkos career playoff stats are underwhelming overall but when facing elimination he is a complete ghost.

Karl and Duchene both play with emotion that is nearly impossible to replace at their talent level. Stamkos is a regular season darling but is soft as baby **** when the season is on the line.

Duchene has a total of eight playoff games under his belt. Pump the brakes a bit and take off those homer goggles.

It’s not even worth comparing Duchene and Stamkos. Stamkos is on another level above Duchene and had much more post season experience.

 

[Mr Hat]

Duchene has a total of eight playoff games under his belt. Pump the brakes a bit and take off those homer goggles.

It’s not even worth comparing Duchene and Stamkos. Stamkos is on another level above Duchene and had much more post season experience.

Sorry I must have missed his "other level" play when he had 0 even strength points this last series. If he had another level he should have turned it on in Game 7, he was MIA.

Duchene is not a proven playoff performer by any means. My point was thay his style of play and tenacity are both important and rare. I'd rather have guys who swarm the puck and make life hell for other oponents vs a guy like Stammer. VGK have basically proven you can win without a Stamkos on your team.

 

[trentmccleary]

Agreed. Stamkos career playoff stats are underwhelming overall but when facing elimination he is a complete ghost.

Karl and Duchene both play with emotion that is nearly impossible to replace at their talent level. Stamkos is a regular season darling but is soft as baby **** when the season is on the line.

1) he's 15th in PPG and 16th in GPG since 2011 in the playoffs among players with 50 games or more.

2) Who are these players who regularly rescue their teams from the brink of elimination?

 

[Mr Hat]

1) he's 15th in PPG and 16th in GPG since 2011 in the playoffs among players with 50 games or more.

2) Who are these players who regularly rescue their teams from the brink of elimination?

1) 15th isn't disrespectful by any means, based on his regular season stats and the price tag rumored in the open market you would expect more given his line support. The bad numbers are facing elimination, and it's not a small sample size either.



2) I didn't say anyone is rescuing their teams on a regular basis. There are alot of clutch scorers in the NHL and superstars are supposed to score big goals or make big saves when it counts.

 

[trentmccleary]

1) 15th isn't disrespectful by any means, based on his regular season stats and the price tag rumored in the open market you would expect more given his line support. The bad numbers are facing elimination, and it's not a small sample size either.

2) I didn't say anyone is rescuing their teams on a regular basis. There are alot of clutch scorers in the NHL and superstars are supposed to score big goals or make big saves when it counts.

You'd expect a little more, but he's not in Selanne/Mogilny/Whitney territory. Or Yashin? Do you remember him?

He was eliminated 4 times. He played 4 final games and went scoreless.

Ryan Getzlaf; who (considering the level of player) has probably been this generation's best playoff performer. He has a career 10-0-4-4 line in his final game and didn't post his first point until his 5th of those games.

 

[Mr Hat]

You'd expect a little more, but he's not in Selanne/Mogilny/Whitney territory. Or Yashin? Do you remember him?

He was eliminated 4 times. He played 4 final games and went scoreless.

Ryan Getzlaf; who (considering the level of player) has probably been this generation's best playoff performer. He has a career 10-0-4-4 line in his final game and didn't post his first point until his 5th of those games.

Yes and Getzlaf plays a game more similar to Duchene than Stamkos. He is better away from the puck, has grit, and you notice him almost every shift even if he's not hitting the score sheet.

I'm over reacting based on the last game, but that 3rd period belly up effort was mind blowing.

In a straight trade I'd take Stamkos over Duchene as he has much more value, but if the situation was for Ottawa to take Stamkos at 12M vs Duchene at 8M I take Duchene for his all around play.

 

[HSF]

Not at all.

Look at it this way. Picture yourself as a professional soccer player in Italy. Now imagine, there's only two other guys on the entire team who's first language is English, and who grew up in North America. Even if they aren't your 'best buddies,' you will naturally gravitate to them a little bit because you share more in common. A guy from Germany will have no idea what you're talking about when you say you're craving a poutine. A guy from Britain won't know about the culture around tailgating before a big game.

Having someone who shares that familiarity and background when you're surrounded by a different culture is very comforting to a lot of people.

Ya except you could easily not like a certain Person even if they are of the same culture.

Swedish players are also pretty western so much so Karlsson married an Ottawa girl

Again you can't just throw out Swedish names and assume they are upset they got traded

 

[JungleBeat]

In a straight trade I'd take Stamkos over Duchene as he has much more value, but if the situation was for Ottawa to take Stamkos at 12M vs Duchene at 8M I take Duchene for his all around play

Stamkos has a caphit of $8.5M. You take the better player every time in Stamkos.

 

[Ice-Tray]

This will be a fun post to revisit 12 months from now when Hoffman, Dzingel, Duchene and Karlsson are all playing for other teams while Anderson, Condon, Smith and Ryan remain.

Also, think about what you just wrote and consider not re-acquiring Methot, dealing picks to save money on Hammond, Brassardx2 and Hemsky.

It is possible for me to be unhappy about hockey related things, I just need it to happen first before I can. It was a bad season, but we got a good pick, and the Duchene trade was a homerun. The EK situation is sketchy, but nearly as bad as Tavares, and we still haven't seen the outcome. I guess if you don't really care about the EM shenanigans, and you're not down on management, things don't really look particularly bad beyond what you'd expect from a bottom of the standings finish. The players seem happy, we have lots of good prospects, a wicked draft coming up, and some key guys to trade or sign this summer.

- I'm glad we didn't require Methot. I enjoyed him while he was here, but it was a good time, and excuse to part ways.

- I would welcome a Hoffman trade, I don't like the way he plays the game.

- I can't see signing Dzingle being an issue.

- Signing EK is more complex than simply showing him the money.

- I liked both Brassard trades. Don't want Zib here, excited to see who we get with our 1st rounder, and the goalie prospect looks to be a real good one.

- I'm not really as high on picks as most here so I don't really care. If it takes some creativity to get good hockey deals done, so be it. Of course I'd prefer not, but we're a small market team, thus rarely a cap team, and we have to be creative sometimes.

- It would be nice if our owner was more wealthy, and earned lots of money outside of hockey so he could just 'play' in regards to running the team, but if I'm wishing about money, I think I'll just wish for myself and my family

The other side of the coin I suppose will be that when we sign Duchene and Stone, you'll just be happy like everyone else, and I won't try and make you revisit this.

In all honesty feel free to bring it up if the sky does indeed fall, but the truth is I won't be upset at being wrong, I will be surprised though.

 

[L'Aveuglette]

the Duchene trade was a homerun

I can't even.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

I can't even.

well cant deny how great he was after his first 15 games. i wanna see what he does this year.

 

[Micklebot]

Let's just preface this with 'in my opinion', which should be a given seeing as how everything posted is an opinion given the lack 'proof' of basically anything. I mean people here often discount the words of people directly involved in an event in favour of their own opinions, so the idea of 'proof' is seemingly in the eye of the beholder my friend.

Exactly, we didn't WANT to sign Turris to a large, long term contract because he wasn't a player we wanted to build around, not that we COULDN'T afford to pay him. He was simply not worth it to the franchise, and I for one am happy we didn't. We do have to mindful of expensive long term contracts whether the budget never increase or we grow to be a cap team at the time where we have a contending team. The difference is that some feel it's a financial restraint from the top, rather than a hockey decision made by the GM. We have a budget to work within, but we hear often that EM gives the ok when PD wants to make a splash.

Look, we try not to overpay bottom 6 guys and complimentary pieces and we're cheap, and when we sign complimentary pieces for more than we'd have like, we're stupid. Looking back we have signed all of the core players that we have wanted to pay big money for, and traded away for assets, those that we don't. Your examples were a couple complimentary players that aren't really any better than what we have now, are you really surprised we didn't sign them?

I thought my point was pretty clear, so either it isn't or you're being purposefully difficult, but let me clarify: We have not let a player that we have wanted to keep go because we COULDN'T afford to pay him, but we have let players go because we didn't WANT to meet their salary demands, much like every single other team in the league. If you want to discuss, let's look at core players, not fringe guys that every team let go every year. Our player costs have increased when we have needed to sign a big name player

Also, Alfie is a different situation because he wanted to get paid for the past year in addition to the future year and THAT was the sticking point. He didn't want 'fair market value' he wanted that X2 almost. Once it was clear that he was actually leaving we can see EM realizing that he should have just paid but it seemed it was too late. Again, we didn't lose Alfie because we couldn't afford him.

I don't see any issues signing Duchene or Stone, and EK presents his own issue given that he might ask for too big a portion of the team pie. The reality is that 2 elite defends at 6 million a year could be just as good if not better for the team than one 12 million guy. Can we pay EK? Sure, but is it a good idea to pay him that much? That's the issue in my opinion.

When you're a team that doesn't spend to the cap, what is the motivation for not wanting to spend that much on a player and deciding it's better to move on? Clearly, we could be a better team if we kept some of these guys on, and it wasn't an artificial limit in the cap that prevented us from doing so,

My point is your claim that we've kept everyone we wanted to is a nothingburger. It's meaningless but you brandy it about as proof that there's nothing to worry about and we can sign anybody we want. Basically, the same thing could be said about every single team in the league; they all kept the guys they wanted, and let go or traded those they didn't want to keep. The Hawks traded Saad because they couldn't afford him under the cap? Nah, they just judged his value not to be high enough to justify making the moves required to keep him. Arizona traded Yandle to save money? Nope, they just didn't like him anymore and wanted to use their money elsewhere.

It's fine if you think we should have no issues signing the guys we want, personally, I think there are ways to make that happen (like trading off Smith, for futures, buying out Gaborik, ect) but to say we have always signed the guys we wanted to keep is verifiable false and even if you want to exclude smaller contracts like the 3 year ~3.5 mil per we offered Hemsky, and the one year we offered Stalberg that were both rejected by the players, and the whole Afredsson fiasco it's outright meaningless because you can apply the same logic to every team in the league.