Added to that is it's Carolina. Your ability to attract FAs is limited, and those you do attract are either on very short deals until they can get a better one elsewhere, or you're over paying to retain them. That really makes life difficult for a GM.
Salary Cap: Salary Cap + Roster Building: Malkin Avengers - EndGame
- Thread starter Ugene Magic
- Start date
- Status
Added to that is it's Carolina. Your ability to attract FAs is limited, and those you do attract are either on very short deals until they can get a better one elsewhere, or you're over paying to retain them. That really makes life difficult for a GM.
Ugene Magic
EVIL LAUGH
Yeah, I was gonna go long version but went short and to the point.
They had to over spend, trade to even get talent in besides drafting them. Perfect example was 7.0 for Semin.
DesertedPenguin
Registered User
- Mar 11, 2007
- 6,980
- 7,784
By not giving out lousy contracts with the money you do have. Tomas Kaberle got a three year deal from Rutherford (he was traded within months and then bought out by the Habs). He spent the money on Kaberle rather than putting up as much as possible to keep Erik Cole.
He gave Tuomu Ruutu and Tim Gleason four-year deals that they weren't worthy of. He spent $7 million on Alexander Semin when the Hurricanes had nothing on the blueline. And by the time he was promoted out of harms' way, the Canes had enough bloated contracts eating up their precious cap space that they had a bunch of jobbers on the third and fourth line.
It's one thing to not be able to spend to the cap. It's another to mismanage what cap space you do have with bad contracts and poor evaluations.
At this point, I don't think you're in any position to bitch about someone's (anyones) "poor evaluations".
And you're still overlooking that they NEEDED to overpay to just keep players. And that's in addition to having a very short memory on who those players actually were. Kaberle for example just the season before JR signed him to that 3 year deal put up 47 points and was only 33 years old. Semin had just come of a PPG season... Ruutu while having had a rough season the year before, had (or was on pace to have) 50+ points in each of the 3 seasons prior. And even despite your moaning and bitching over the Kaberle and Ruutu deals, Rutherford WAS able to off load those players without taking back any major salary commitments. But yes, what a terrible GM to have to pay market rates plus for players, and then when it's not working out, move those players without taking back poor contracts. Absolutely atrocious.
Tender Rip
Wears long pants
That's one thing. The other is that it should make everyone reading do a double take if this type of person is likely to be a major trouble maker or the person we should be looking to trade. There's more owning up to personal responsibility in that tweet than the rest of the organization's post-Islanders exit communication put together.
Anyway, another reason is the current talk about what other players such as Duchene will get this Summer. Malkin will be comparatively less expensive next season, again, and provided he gives us more of what is his norm, he will once again be a competitive advantage for us over most peers.
It seems more meaningful to start by addressing real problems rather than trading away one of the two main reasons we have been successful. Perhaps it is time that some of the concerns many of us here have aired about how we play (and how Geno is being used, what he needs to be successful etc) also become priority matters for JR and Sully.
I'd love Marner but we don't have the draft picks to even offer sheet him smh. And if they did, this unwritten rule you don't offer sheet players is frustrating.I expect Marleau will be the guy to take the fall for Marner one way or another. He loves it in Toronto, and he's like a father figure to the young guns. That whole group loves each other like family, so it's going to be brutal for them to move Marleau, but it's the only thing that makes sense.
Unless we trade Geno and sign Marner to an offer sheet.
GMs don't do it for multiple reasons - only one of which is because of the "unwritten rule".
1) The compensation rules on the good players make it prohibitive.
2) If you're targeting a low level player who won't get much for compensation, you'll A) likely need to overpay that player and B) the other team will likely match it and deal with the cap issues later - unless of course you drastically overpaid the player. Then they'll just take the compensation and let you deal with the meh contract.
3) You're almost certainly ruining your cap structure by trying to overpay a player.
4) If the player is that good, the other team will just match and deal with the cap issues, so it's usually a waste of time.
5) It open's up your player's to be targeted - not really something you want to do if you can avoid it. Remember, payback is a bitch.
So while yes you can do it... the benefits vs the risks isn't all that high. You're either drastically overpaying for marginal players, or you're just pissing off other GMs as you try to inflate some player contracts that they're just going to match anyway.
I mean seriously... what RFA player in this year's FA list are you going to OS? Because as I go down the list of players, I can count the guys who would be realistic targets (vs dreams like Laine/Conner/etc) on one hand - missing digits.
I honestly think HF peps look at OS the wrong way. I don't think it's so much a matter of a tool to allow GMs to poach other team's players as it is a tool for the PLAYER to ensure that they're getting a "fair" market rate. It prevents a team like Nashville from lowballing the crap out of Weber. It's not so Pittsburgh (or whomever) can try to pilfer talent from a cap strapped team. And that's exactly how HF wants GMs to use it.
DesertedPenguin
Registered User
- Mar 11, 2007
- 6,980
- 7,784
Rutherford on Kaberle after trading him a couple months into his deal: "I should have known better."At this point, I don't think you're in any position to ***** about someone's (anyones) "poor evaluations".
And you're still overlooking that they NEEDED to overpay to just keep players. And that's in addition to having a very short memory on who those players actually were. Kaberle for example just the season before JR signed him to that 3 year deal put up 47 points and was only 33 years old. Semin had just come of a PPG season... Ruutu while having had a rough season the year before, had (or was on pace to have) 50+ points in each of the 3 seasons prior. And even despite your moaning and *****ing over the Kaberle and Ruutu deals, Rutherford WAS able to off load those players without taking back any major salary commitments. But yes, what a terrible GM to have to pay market rates plus for players, and then when it's not working out, move those players without taking back poor contracts. Absolutely atrocious.
Canadiens trade for a declining Tomas Kaberle - TheHockeyNews
Yes, Rutherford found a sucker to take the contract. But if you're constantly having to fix your own mistakes, that's not good management.
Also, the Semin deal was for a player who everyone knew had issues with motivation and being good in the locker room. His former Caps teammates called him out on it and so did the Russian Federation.
Unlike other deals, that one stuck. The Canes are still paying his buyout.
So, yeah, I think it's fair to question Rutherford's history.
Edit to add - As for Ruutu, he signed the contract extension at age 29. Joe Pavelski, two years earlier, signed a 4-year contract at a lesser cap hit at age 26 after two 20+ goal seasons. Ruutu hadn't had a 20-goal season in four years when he signed the deal.
That's not paying a higher price because you're in Carolina. That's just poor evaluating and management.
Last edited:
I disagree strongly and the reason why I disagree is because I believe that it should be used to extend windows for Cup winning teams. so that way when you need a young Dynamic player you who are picking further back in the first round when you want to draft players instead of drafting guys or trading your picks a way you can use those pics to get younger and continue to win while surrounding your stars with newer upcoming talent and extending your window. I think this whole good old boys GM Club has made it so that the NHL is boring during the offseason because you don't see movement where you should see movement at. and that is how you end up with guys like Connor McDavid stuck in Edmonton losing never on national TV and wasting away when he could be growing the game
Vegeta
God Dammit Nappa
And probably the last!
I would like this comment, but that would mean giving you acknowledgement.
Son Goku
henlo u stinky egg
oh whatever vegeta! You’re just mad cause I can go ultra instinct AND YOU CAN’T! So hmph!
We can’t keep cycling through coaches because of one guy? Uh what? Did you forget that Crosby dogged it during Therrien/Johnson’s final months, and Malkin was the star whose play kept those coaches around longer than they should been? Bylsma also. Did you forget that Crosby was the star outsiders talked about as the coach killer? Did you forget Crosby is the one star that chooses his linemates, not Malkin? Love Crosby, but really.
A lot of revisionist history right now.
A lot of revisionist history right now.
Slaaapshuter
Registered User
- May 10, 2015
- 1,195
- 860
I'm all for being hardball and disciplining the players to buy in.
My major issue is, and this is something that will blow up in Rutherfords face, Malkin committing and buying in doesn't make the guys at the blueline better hockey players.
For sure Malkins line will perform better and not be a total disaster, but won't change that much in the grand scheme of things. Malkin pouting on the bench have no effect on the fact that player X can't give a pass and player Y can't receive it without it bouncing of the blade.
And I doubt bench pouters have any role to play in the fact that player Y doesn't seem to know what to do with the puck once he receives it. Looking at you Sullivan...
Speaking of the coach, in the 2016-2017 playoffs we started to turtle on defense, no longer putting any pressure on the puck. It was a nightmarish situation to watch most of the time. It's been the defensive system since, now counting to 2 full seasons and 3 playoffs. That's a conscious tactical decision made by the coaching staff, not the players.
Lot of things to look at this summer, but if getting Malkin to buy in is your first (and only?) play then...
My major issue is, and this is something that will blow up in Rutherfords face, Malkin committing and buying in doesn't make the guys at the blueline better hockey players.
For sure Malkins line will perform better and not be a total disaster, but won't change that much in the grand scheme of things. Malkin pouting on the bench have no effect on the fact that player X can't give a pass and player Y can't receive it without it bouncing of the blade.
And I doubt bench pouters have any role to play in the fact that player Y doesn't seem to know what to do with the puck once he receives it. Looking at you Sullivan...
Speaking of the coach, in the 2016-2017 playoffs we started to turtle on defense, no longer putting any pressure on the puck. It was a nightmarish situation to watch most of the time. It's been the defensive system since, now counting to 2 full seasons and 3 playoffs. That's a conscious tactical decision made by the coaching staff, not the players.
Lot of things to look at this summer, but if getting Malkin to buy in is your first (and only?) play then...
ncm7772
Registered User
LOL. A lot happens in the NHL contract wise over a 2 year span. 2 years after Ruutu signed that contract, you had Ryan sign a 7.25m contract after putting up a whopping 48 pts the season before. Sure makes that Ruutu contract look good.
And yes that's exactly what it is. But you can't see it, because you don't want to see it.
Last edited:
Like I said... HF people look at it as a tool that should be used to pilfer talent, where as the reason it's actually there is for a mechanism for the players to ensure they're not getting f***ed financially.
And LOL at McDavid getting OS'd. Do you really think that Edmonton wouldn't have matched whatever OS he was given? Don't be intentionally dense.
madinsomniac
Registered User
If we are stupid enough to part ways with malkin before the cup window is shut then I hope in the post trade presser Jr says that moving him was inevitable, then malkin walks out on stage, says”I am score” fights JR, then leaves for good.... lol
I wish Malkin would just take a damned break for once too. Every year he goes to that damned World Championship and based on how he played this year he could use an extended rest.
But the Russians always seem to go to that so what are ya gonna do.
But the Russians always seem to go to that so what are ya gonna do.
- Jun 13, 2010
- 40,647
- 18,856
- Jun 13, 2010
- 40,647
- 18,856
Haven't you been reading this thread? Malkin was bad because JR signed Jack Johnson. Oh and Sullivan was mean to him. Time to get rid of both.
I mean his performance probably was not helped by playing in front of JJ. And him and Sully need to get on the same page, and that's on both of them to figure that out.
I’m not that up to date on this thread and I’m certainly not going through 40 pages to sort it out. But is it your position that you’d rather get rid of Malkin and keep Sullivan and JR around?
If Malkin can't actually make changes to his game and adapt... then depending on the returns, potentially. I don't care about JR so much as I do Sully. Because while all coaches have a shelf life, ultimately at the end of the day you still need a coach, and unless we can get a better one then Sully, getting rid of him doesn't make a ton of sense right now.
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
2024 NHL Draft Lottery Team that wins #1 pick - PICK ONLY ONE TEAMWagers: 9Staked: $11,200.00Event closes- Updated: