Speculation: Matt Moulson : 6mil on the open market??

[ScaredStreit]

Not exactly fair. It's not too often a core player makes it to UFA to begin with. Zach Parise and Ryan Suter are two recent ones, under some unique circumstances, but most teams lock up core players and allow others to walk (or be traded, like Phil Kessel from BOS, for example).

Snow's done an amazing job of locking up certain players - like Bailey, Okposo, Grabner, Tavares, Hamonic, Fransie AND a really nice job on shorter term deals to guys like Strait, Hickey and Visnovsky and Nabby.

Walkers like Jason Blake, Ryan Smyth, PA Parenteau, Mark Streit, Brad Boyes - won't cry too much for these guys.

We'll see what becomes of Moulson and MacDonald. I'd like both signed but at a price. Imagine we kept Parenteau and Streit on 4 year deals and then have Strome, Nelson & Donovan (maybe Reinhart and Pulock!) coming off ELCs and no money to sign them? (budget/cap doesn't matter)

The Leafs bought out Grabovski and had just pennies left for Kadri and Franson, two key players, and an unmovable JM Liles in the AHL and still on the cap.

There's no point in having cap-space if it's never used.

Plus it sounds like you're all ready to pencil in Nelson, Strome and Donovan as successes. I'm not saying none of them will be-but if they all reach "potential"-we'll be lucky. Remember when everyone thought that Nilsson and Tambo were future 1st liners? Yeah me too.

 

[blinkman360]

There's no point in having cap-space if it's never used.

Plus it sounds like you're all ready to pencil in Nelson, Strome and Donovan as successes. I'm not saying none of them will be-but if they all reach "potential"-we'll be lucky. Remember when everyone thought that Nilsson and Tambo were future 1st liners? Yeah me too.

I don't see the problem with it.

1) Tambo and Nilsson never had Tavares dishing them pucks, and they were never as highly regarded around the league as Strome(who is generally considered a top-10 prospect).

2) Nelson is already playing like a quality 3rd liner, so IMO it's safe to assume he'll continue to get better and reach that 2nd line level(which is all we need from him). Three games into his NHL career and he already looks like one of our better forwards.

3) Donovan still has some work to do, but the great part about having all this defensive depth in the system is that we can afford to miss on a few guys. As long as Reinhart pans out I don't see any cause for concern, and based on the way Griff has played this TC as a 19 year old, I'll be pretty surprised if he doesn't pan out.

Not to say these are reasons to let Matt Moulson walk, but it at least gives you the option knowing that some help is here/on the way. If cap wasn't a concern, then by all means give Moulson $6M without thinking twice. Unfortunately it is a concern, so overpaying a guy like Moulson could end up preventing us from getting the goalie we really want. Who knows though, maybe the Isles will up the payroll if they continue to win. I really would love nothing more than that.

 

[InformTheMasses]

There's no point in having cap-space if it's never used.

Plus it sounds like you're all ready to pencil in Nelson, Strome and Donovan as successes. I'm not saying none of them will be-but if they all reach "potential"-we'll be lucky. Remember when everyone thought that Nilsson and Tambo were future 1st liners? Yeah me too.

'Cap space' there it is again.....

Fantasy-land.

 

[ScaredStreit]

'Cap space' there it is again.....

Fantasy-land.

The Isles currently have $14.5million in cap space. This upcoming off-season they will have $27million.


WITH 15 players from the current roster already signed!

Are you going to honestly say that giving Moulson a raise of say $2million per year, leaving us with $25million in "fantasyland" cap space is going to significantly hinder this team?

We have holes on this team, but it's a fantasy to think that a legit 30 goal-scorer is one of them. That's the fantasy my friend.

I don't see the problem with it.

1) Tambo and Nilsson never had Tavares dishing them pucks, and they were never as highly regarded around the league as Strome(who is generally considered a top-10 prospect).

2) Nelson is already playing like a quality 3rd liner, so IMO it's safe to assume he'll continue to get better and reach that 2nd line level(which is all we need from him). Three games into his NHL career and he already looks like one of our better forwards.

3) Donovan still has some work to do, but the great part about having all this defensive depth in the system is that we can afford to miss on a few guys. As long as Reinhart pans out I don't see any cause for concern, and based on the way Griff has played this TC as a 19 year old, I'll be pretty surprised if he doesn't pan out.

Not to say these are reasons to let Matt Moulson walk, but it at least gives you the option knowing that some help is here/on the way. If cap wasn't a concern, then by all means give Moulson $6M without thinking twice. Unfortunately it is a concern, so overpaying a guy like Moulson could end up preventing us from getting the goalie we really want. Who knows though, maybe the Isles will up the payroll if they continue to win. I really would love nothing more than that.

1) On the Isles HF Tambo was just as highly touted as Strome-maybe even more (due to the lack of depth we had at prospects at the time). People were saying that he was a future 1st liner/all-star around these parts.

2) It's not safe to say anything about Nelson-it's been what 2 games? Give it some time. (I agree we only need him to be a #2 center). I'm not counting him out at all-just saying don't count your chickens before they hatch.

3) What defensive depth do the Isles have? Having warm bodies =/- depth.

4) It's been 2 games into the year, we can't say if they "continue to win". Especially since the team as a whole looked sloppy if you ask me-and both games had to go to a shootout.

Here's my question: let's say Moulson gets a raise of $2million/year. Is that amount REALLY going to affect us signing these prospects after their ELCs are up?

 

[InformTheMasses]

The Isles currently have $14.5million in cap space. This upcoming off-season they will have $27million.


WITH 15 players from the current roster already signed!

Are you going to honestly say that giving Moulson a raise of say $2million per year, leaving us with $25million in "fantasyland" cap space is going to significantly hinder this team?

We have holes on this team, but it's a fantasy to think that a legit 30 goal-scorer is one of them. That's the fantasy my friend.

As long as you keep deducting current payroll from a factitious number like max salary cap that has absolutely NO BEARING on the Islanders Budget... it's purely fantasy

 

[InformTheMasses]

Also I'm curious, why is it that all of your arguments revolve around bringing up prospect failures of years past, like Jason Krog, Tambolini, Nilsson etc? Is it that you enjoy living in the past? Or that you haven't seen much of these kids play to form an opinion on them other than comparing their stats to prospects of a decade ago?

 

[ScaredStreit]

Also I'm curious, why is it that all of your arguments revolve around bringing up prospect failures of years past, like Jason Krog, Tambolini, Nilsson etc? Is it that you enjoy living in the past? Or that you haven't seen much of these kids play to form an opinion on them other than comparing their stats to prospects of a decade ago?

It's many people on here are already penciling prospects into important roles on the team-and assuming that they'll reach their potential. Some of them will-but not all of them. Not all of our prospects are going to pan out, not all of them are going to fail.


But here's my main point: an organization shouldn't base their current decisions around uncertainty in the future. Not resigning Moulson to a big contract in order to save space for prospects down the road is a question mark.


But let's say we do resign MM to a big contract, and all of our prospects DO pan out....what's the worst case scenario? We waive him? We trade him? We buy him out (which at that point he'd probably have 1 MAYBE 2 years left on his deal)? I don't think that that's a lot to risk.

In other words: having too many good players signed to fit under a cap is better than haing tons of unused space. Remember when Chicago signed Campbell to that crazy deal? Or Hossa's deal? Did anybody think it was crazy when they lifted the cup?

 

[redbull]

It's many people on here are already penciling prospects into important roles on the team-and assuming that they'll reach their potential. Some of them will-but not all of them. Not all of our prospects are going to pan out, not all of them are going to fail.


But here's my main point: an organization shouldn't base their current decisions around uncertainty in the future. Not resigning Moulson to a big contract in order to save space for prospects down the road is a question mark.


But let's say we do resign MM to a big contract, and all of our prospects DO pan out....what's the worst case scenario? We waive him? We trade him? We buy him out (which at that point he'd probably have 1 MAYBE 2 years left on his deal)? I don't think that that's a lot to risk.

In other words: having too many good players signed to fit under a cap is better than haing tons of unused space. Remember when Chicago signed Campbell to that crazy deal? Or Hossa's deal? Did anybody think it was crazy when they lifted the cup?

What are the Leafs plans with Liles? Grabovski? Komisarek? The Rangers with Brad Richards? What about Yashin? How good was Mark Parrish in his later years? (similar player to Moulson)

Chicago was up against the cap but they had some pretty damn good players, no offense to Moulson. Byfuglien, Versteeg, Hossa, Bolland, then there was Kane, Keith, Toews, Seabrook....some were expendable and others weren't. Again, I don't consider Moulson that irreplaceable, just too limited a player.

Boston felt Kessel could be let go, they got two (three with J.Knight) pretty good prospects in return and were able to keep guys like Bergeron, Chara, Krejci and other core players.

Wouldn't get too attached to players that are good in the stats sheet, not anywhere else.

There's no point in having cap-space if it's never used.

Plus it sounds like you're all ready to pencil in Nelson, Strome and Donovan as successes. I'm not saying none of them will be-but if they all reach "potential"-we'll be lucky. Remember when everyone thought that Nilsson and Tambo were future 1st liners? Yeah me too.

Nothing to do with pencilling in - though I'm fairly sure those three, along with Pulock and Reinhart, will be in the NHL in two years unless they get hurt. How good? Who knows.

For Moulson, it's about value for dollar, in a environment with a fixed cost (be it budget or cap ceiling)

Like with most players, their market value as a UFA is far higher than their value on the ice. For some players, irreplaceable ones, teams will do what they have to to retain them (Kessel, a week ago) while others are let go, like Ribeiro, Boyes, Streit, Parenteau.

I think we disagree on which group Moulson belongs in.

 

[ThreeLeftSkates]

I think we disagree on which group Moulson belongs in.

You mean team, not group.
It is as simple as keeping him until we get someone better. As of now, we are still looking for JT's RW.

 

[steveat]

Just curious..

Would we still have this convo if JT wasn't Moulsons friend? Imagine for a moment that Moulson was like PA> Some random guy we picked up from somewhere...

Would people still be arguing about his worth and whether he should get paid so much. Would we have "sides" or would we be all against MM and say he needs to be traded? I almost sense people defending MM not really so much because of his skill, but because of his relationship with JT?

 

[ScaredStreit]

Just curious..

Would we still have this convo if JT wasn't Moulsons friend? Imagine for a moment that Moulson was like PA> Some random guy we picked up from somewhere...

Would people still be arguing about his worth and whether he should get paid so much. Would we have "sides" or would we be all against MM and say he needs to be traded? I almost sense people defending MM not really so much because of his skill, but because of his relationship with JT?

For me it's not his relationship with JT-it's his chemistry. And that's something that cannot be taught. I heard Espo talking on the radio yesterday, and essentially said that it's those garbage goals that win tight hockey games. And there's a lot of truth to that.

Who would you have replace Moulson on the 1st line? Bailey?

We're trying to find 1 winger who has chemistry with JT-there's no need to have to find 2.

 

[LeapOnOver]

I don't see the problem with it.

1) Tambo and Nilsson never had Tavares dishing them pucks, and they were never as highly regarded around the league as Strome(who is generally considered a top-10 prospect).

2) Nelson is already playing like a quality 3rd liner, so IMO it's safe to assume he'll continue to get better and reach that 2nd line level(which is all we need from him). Three games into his NHL career and he already looks like one of our better forwards.

3) Donovan still has some work to do, but the great part about having all this defensive depth in the system is that we can afford to miss on a few guys. As long as Reinhart pans out I don't see any cause for concern, and based on the way Griff has played this TC as a 19 year old, I'll be pretty surprised if he doesn't pan out.

Not to say these are reasons to let Matt Moulson walk, but it at least gives you the option knowing that some help is here/on the way. If cap wasn't a concern, then by all means give Moulson $6M without thinking twice. Unfortunately it is a concern, so overpaying a guy like Moulson could end up preventing us from getting the goalie we really want. Who knows though, maybe the Isles will up the payroll if they continue to win. I really would love nothing more than that.

I agree on the Tambellini front but Nilsson was pretty highly regarded and although he didn't get the press that Strome got (purely because he wasn't a North American skater) another better example is Ryan O'marra around the same time period. He came just as highly touted as Strome and never amounted to a hill of beans. So the point is there is no way to know on Strome yet. Almost everyone agrees he is not NHL ready...and that's all there is to it.

 

[Shot of Bailey]

I don't believe there is anyone on our roster right now to replace MM. That is not my arguement. I'm not even banking on Strome taking that role. My point remains that MM is not worth 6mil +....even if someone out there is willing to pay it. As for the whole friendship thing, this is not peewee. A fair offer will be made to MM, it will be up to him to accept or try free agency. Snow will not just let Moulson walk without a very competitive fair offer (I'm sure MM's agent is aware of the martet and worth). If MM is that loyal to us, to JT (as his best friend as some have posted) then like the Sedin's and others in the past, he'll leave some $$ on the table to stay where he has said "he loves to play".

 

[blinkman360]

I agree on the Tambellini front but Nilsson was pretty highly regarded and although he didn't get the press that Strome got (purely because he wasn't a North American skater) another better example is Ryan O'marra around the same time period. He came just as highly touted as Strome and never amounted to a hill of beans. So the point is there is no way to know on Strome yet. Almost everyone agrees he is not NHL ready...and that's all there is to it.

Nilsson was highly touted prior to the draft but his stock dropped significantly by the time the Isles got him. He was still a solid prospect, maybe top-30 at his peak, but he was never considered an "elite" prospect like Strome.

O'Marra wasn't even close. You must be thinking of someone else. When O'Marra was drafted most thought his ceiling was a 2C/3C tweener. I don't remember that changing much after he was drafted. If anything it dropped a bit around the time we traded for Smyth. O'Marra's value came from him being considered "safe", which is pretty ironic considering he never amounted to anything.

 

[Paulinho]

What are the Leafs plans with Liles? Grabovski? Komisarek? The Rangers with Brad Richards? What about Yashin? How good was Mark Parrish in his later years? (similar player to Moulson)

Chicago was up against the cap but they had some pretty damn good players, no offense to Moulson. Byfuglien, Versteeg, Hossa, Bolland, then there was Kane, Keith, Toews, Seabrook....some were expendable and others weren't. Again, I don't consider Moulson that irreplaceable, just too limited a player.

Boston felt Kessel could be let go, they got two (three with J.Knight) pretty good prospects in return and were able to keep guys like Bergeron, Chara, Krejci and other core players.

Wouldn't get too attached to players that are good in the stats sheet, not anywhere else.



Nothing to do with pencilling in - though I'm fairly sure those three, along with Pulock and Reinhart, will be in the NHL in two years unless they get hurt. How good? Who knows.

For Moulson, it's about value for dollar, in a environment with a fixed cost (be it budget or cap ceiling)

Like with most players, their market value as a UFA is far higher than their value on the ice. For some players, irreplaceable ones, teams will do what they have to to retain them (Kessel, a week ago) while others are let go, like Ribeiro, Boyes, Streit, Parenteau.

I think we disagree on which group Moulson belongs in.

Great post.

 

[redbull]

Nilsson was highly touted prior to the draft but his stock dropped significantly by the time the Isles got him. He was still a solid prospect, maybe top-30 at his peak, but he was never considered an "elite" prospect like Strome.

O'Marra wasn't even close. You must be thinking of someone else. When O'Marra was drafted most thought his ceiling was a 2C/3C tweener. I don't remember that changing much after he was drafted. If anything it dropped a bit around the time we traded for Smyth. O'Marra's value came from him being considered "safe", which is pretty ironic considering he never amounted to anything.

Agree. O'Marra's highest projected upside was in the Michael Peca type. Not bad had he reached that peak - but he was a mid-round pick, 15th overall, same as Nilsson and Mike Bossy O'Marra played well on Team Canada at the WJC, but had a Cizikas-like role. He was never a scorer. In fact, I don't think he even cracked 30 goals in junior. Dave Bolland scored over 50 in his last year of junior.

Nilsson was hyped because at 17, he scored more points in the SEL than Peter Forsberg did at the same age. After that, his game never really improved or changed. He's in Switzerland now, after two seasons in the KHL.

Strome broke 100pts in his draft year, a rare feat, and was a 5th overall. Hardly the same thing. Aside from that, he looks really good playing in the AHL and looked good in camp. The kid's ready for prime time. Not saying he'll come in and score 20 goals and 50 points but he'll outscore Regin without at doubt.

I don't believe there is anyone on our roster right now to replace MM. That is not my arguement. I'm not even banking on Strome taking that role. My point remains that MM is not worth 6mil +....even if someone out there is willing to pay it. As for the whole friendship thing, this is not peewee. A fair offer will be made to MM, it will be up to him to accept or try free agency. Snow will not just let Moulson walk without a very competitive fair offer (I'm sure MM's agent is aware of the martet and worth). If MM is that loyal to us, to JT (as his best friend as some have posted) then like the Sedin's and others in the past, he'll leave some $$ on the table to stay where he has said "he loves to play".

nicely put.

To add, I don't think the Isles need to think about it as "replacing Moulson" - we don't have to replace 30 goals. We may just need a different type of player. Maybe a 15 goal scorer who can dig pucks out of corners, forecheck hard, skate well, pass well might complement JT or some other linemate or simply make the Islanders better overall. Very few players can score goals like Moulson but there are also very few players that are so ineffective in all other parts of the game as Moulson.

As much as I like Moulson and respect his rare ability to score, that $5MM and 4 year term seems like a problem, more than a solution. We'll see how this unfolds. I'd like him to stay but I wouldn't be afraid to walk away.

 

[steveat]

I am pretty sure O'Marra was 7th or 6th pick. I remember watching O'Marra at the Ivan Hlinka Tournament along with Cogliano and I think even Marchand. Ryan didn't seem that bad, though, I didn't think he had high end skills, but he was a smart hardworking positional player. Oh well, you win some and you lose some.

 

[blinkman360]

I am pretty sure O'Marra was 7th or 6th pick. I remember watching O'Marra at the Ivan Hlinka Tournament along with Cogliano and I think even Marchand. Ryan didn't seem that bad, though, I didn't think he had high end skills, but he was a smart hardworking positional player. Oh well, you win some and you lose some.

15th overall in '05, the Crosby draft.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/draftstats.htm?year=2005&team=&position=&round=

 

[kasper11]

What are the Leafs plans with Liles? Grabovski? Komisarek? The Rangers with Brad Richards? What about Yashin? How good was Mark Parrish in his later years? (similar player to Moulson)

Chicago was up against the cap but they had some pretty damn good players, no offense to Moulson. Byfuglien, Versteeg, Hossa, Bolland, then there was Kane, Keith, Toews, Seabrook....some were expendable and others weren't. Again, I don't consider Moulson that irreplaceable, just too limited a player.

Boston felt Kessel could be let go, they got two (three with J.Knight) pretty good prospects in return and were able to keep guys like Bergeron, Chara, Krejci and other core players.

Wouldn't get too attached to players that are good in the stats sheet, not anywhere else.

One thing worth noting about teams like Chicago and Boston...they didn't lose key players for nothing and they didn't dump players before they were forced to. Chicago dumped a bunch of players when they were up against the Cap, but before that, they signed the best players they could. Same with Boston.

If the Isles are willing to spend, there is no reason not to re-sign Moulson. They are nowhere near the cap, and won't be. If 2-3 years down the road we need the space, you make a trade then. Why let Moulson go now, when you are $20M under the cap, unless it is because you are trying to save money, not cap space?

Yes, the Isles have a lot of prospects. Yes, $6M could be a burden down the road. But paying $6M for a $5M player is not crippling when the cap will be around $70M.

The Isles need to add to the team they have now, not struggle just to keep the same talent level.

 

[ScaredStreit]

Nilsson was highly touted prior to the draft but his stock dropped significantly by the time the Isles got him. He was still a solid prospect, maybe top-30 at his peak, but he was never considered an "elite" prospect like Strome.

O'Marra wasn't even close. You must be thinking of someone else. When O'Marra was drafted most thought his ceiling was a 2C/3C tweener. I don't remember that changing much after he was drafted. If anything it dropped a bit around the time we traded for Smyth. O'Marra's value came from him being considered "safe", which is pretty ironic considering he never amounted to anything.

I agree on Nilsson. O'Marra I'd lean more towards a #2 center-but you're right he was never projected to be a #1. I think the main point is that not all prospects pan out (I think we can obviously agree on that)-even elite prospects.

If Daigle can bust-anybody can.

(For the record I don't think Strome will be a bust-just saying it's inconclusive at the moment).

 

[blinkman360]

I agree on Nilsson. O'Marra I'd lean more towards a #2 center-but you're right he was never projected to be a #1. I think the main point is that not all prospects pan out (I think we can obviously agree on that)-even elite prospects.

If Daigle can bust-anybody can.

(For the record I don't think Strome will be a bust-just saying it's inconclusive at the moment).

I agree, any prospect can bust, but I think there are also prospects that are guaranteed to get NHL time, and some of which in top-six/top-4 roles. IMO, Strome, Nelson, and Reinhart all fall under that category. Maybe they all pan out, maybe they all bust, but I'm pretty confident that Strome will get time at 1RW or 2C; Nelson will get time on the 2nd line; and Reinhart will get time on the 2nd pairing(probably with Visnovsky). That's why I don't see a problem with writing these three into future lineups.

 

[19 in a row]

Only 3 games in, and after attending both home games and watching MM once again 1) glide to pucks in his own zone that he could easily have won with just one or two strides, 2)playing hot potato with the puck whether or not he has any ice to skate or players open to pass to, and 3) casually getting back on D in transition like he has all the time in the world, I realize that nothing has changed and why I am not on the MM bandwagon. He is an awesome PP specialist and has a great sense for the puck in front of the net, but he is a huge liability everywhere else. Maybe it is just my perception but he is the only one that looks to be lacking in effort when not trying to score. I don't give him $6M, I don't even give him $5M in any type of multi year deal. Assuming we lose him after this year, I take the best offer before the trade deadline and I either move Bailey to the first line or have it open up a spot for Strome.... to me it would be addition by subtraction since I firmly believe over the course of the year he costs at least if not more goals than he creates, he is that bad in every other facet.

Oh and great team win last night

 

[blitzkriegs]

Only 3 games in, and after attending both home games and watching MM once again 1) glide to pucks in his own zone that he could easily have won with just one or two strides, 2)playing hot potato with the puck whether or not he has any ice to skate or players open to pass to, and 3) casually getting back on D in transition like he has all the time in the world, I realize that nothing has changed and why I am not on the MM bandwagon. He is an awesome PP specialist and has a great sense for the puck in front of the net, but he is a huge liability everywhere else. Maybe it is just my perception but he is the only one that looks to be lacking in effort when not trying to score. I don't give him $6M, I don't even give him $5M in any type of multi year deal. Assuming we lose him after this year, I take the best offer before the trade deadline and I either move Bailey to the first line or have it open up a spot for Strome.... to me it would be addition by subtraction since I firmly believe over the course of the year he costs at least if not more goals than he creates, he is that bad in every other facet.

Oh and great team win last night

So, Moulson scores 30/35+ goals per season (3x and projected 4x for last year). Then, he by himself causes the team to give up more than 30/35+ goals per season. Ok, so now Strome (w/zero NHL experience and documented NHL goal scoring) or Bailey (a guy that has never scored 20 goals and with a similr +/- as Moulson) are going to absorb Moulson's loss?

Moulson shoots 2x as much as Bailey. All of sudden strome is going to come into the league, get first line duty, shoot 200+ times over 82 games, AND score at a pace similar to Moulson AND on the PP?

Come on people, Moulson is a flawed player but he has chemistry with JT and has demonstrated 3 (close to 4) years of 30+ goal scoring ability.

The Isles cheaped out on PAP, yet he produced in COL at the same clip and he was referred to as the man made by JT. Yet, the Isles got Boyes for $1mil and PMB for $2mil over two years totalling $3 mil. Right now, the almighty Strome hasn't taken the top spot everyone gave him, except the team.

Was PAP declining? Nope. Was Streit declining? Yep. And Moulson is ... ?

Until Bailey, Grabner, and Okposo play consistent NHL hockey and contribute on the score routinely, you have to PAY Moulson because those three guys have not yet demonstrated they can handle enough of the load.

 

[Felix Unger]

As much as I like Moulson and respect his rare ability to score, that $5MM and 4 year term seems like a problem, more than a solution. We'll see how this unfolds. I'd like him to stay but I wouldn't be afraid to walk away.

I completely agree.

Another thing to keep in mind: one of the really good things about NYI's roster in the moment is their ability to free-flow forwards in and out of lines, roles, and positions. The coach isn't stuck with figuring out how a line exploits a matchup, he can literally ask himself which PLAYER allows him to exploit a matchup, and put that guy on a line. That's what versatile players like Nielsen, Okposo, Bailey, Nelson, Regin, Grabner, Cizikas, and even Martin do. Any of those guys can PP or PK. Any of those guys can play in defensive or offensive roles.

Moulson scores, but he doesn't fit the rest of the team. I don't like a long-term commitment.

 

[lacunacoil777]

I completely agree.

Another thing to keep in mind: one of the really good things about NYI's roster in the moment is their ability to free-flow forwards in and out of lines, roles, and positions. The coach isn't stuck with figuring out how a line exploits a matchup, he can literally ask himself which PLAYER allows him to exploit a matchup, and put that guy on a line. That's what versatile players like Nielsen, Okposo, Bailey, Nelson, Regin, Grabner, Cizikas, and even Martin do. Any of those guys can PP or PK. Any of those guys can play in defensive or offensive roles.

Moulson scores, but he doesn't fit the rest of the team. I don't like a long-term commitment.

ALso It shows how the Isles have money problems so besides for Tavares they don't have great forwards on the team. In other words, every body is just about as good as the next guy, or just as "limited".