Summer '15 Thread II (All Proposals/Blog Rumors in here)

[Double-Shift Lasse]

We have to find a way to get rid of Clarkson. It isn't so much how much he makes, but the fact that he takes a spot from a younger player who should be playing. Not necessarily now, but probably at some point this year or next. I know why Columbus traded Horton for him, but that is why I wouldn't have.

I don't care to play water under the bridge games, but I agree with you. He just feels "in the way".

 

[EspenK]

Ecklund now reporting that Crawford could be traded. Watch Chicago fans dispute Sweeney as Bad GM of the year.

Although with Ecklund he covers all his bases so this one is probably off the wall.

 

[Fro]

especially after CHI already dealt Raanta...

 

[CBJWerenski8]

Kessel to PIT

 

[EspenK]

Kessel to PIT

Holy Pitt!

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

I don't care to play water under the bridge games, but I agree with you. He just feels "in the way".

Just send him to the press box then.

If they're paying him regardless, pay him not to hurt you rather than to detract from the team.

If a young guy is better than Clarkson, then that young guy should be playing and Clarkson should have a reduced role or no role, regardless of salary.

To give a guy more responsibility than he deserves because of the size of his paycheck just sounds like compounding a problem to me. I know this often happens in sports, but it often strikes me as foolish.

I still think Clarkson can play ok with this team. Where on the team he plays, I have no clue yet. His salary is 100 percent my issue with him.

 

[CBJWerenski8]

Elliotte Friedman ‏@FriedgeHNIC 8s8 seconds ago

As a @RealKyper reported, Kessel to PIT for Kapanen, Harrington and a pick

Robbery

 

[Fro]

how much is TOR eating for that to be it????

 

[Socks]

What a crazy freaking offseason.

 

[punk_o_holic]

Just send him to the press box then.

If they're paying him regardless, pay him not to hurt you rather than to detract from the team.

If a young guy is better than Clarkson, then that young guy should be playing and Clarkson should have a reduced role or no role, regardless of salary.

To give a guy more responsibility than he deserves because of the size of his paycheck just sounds like compounding a problem to me. I know this often happens in sports, but it often strikes me as foolish.

But what happens if it there is no room in the NHL? Lets say after training camp/pre season, Rychel or Anderson played great but Clarkson was average. Is ownership willing to send Clarkson to the AHL and have him making all that money?

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Just send him to the press box then.

If they're paying him regardless, pay him not to hurt you rather than to detract from the team.

Could have done that with Horton. Although I guess you could argue "you pays yer money, you takes your chances."

I still think Clarkson can play ok with this team. Where on the team he plays, I have no clue yet. His salary is 100 percent my issue with him.

I don't rule it out. It's more of a roster-building thing for me.

 

[EspenK]

how much is TOR eating for that to be it????

Not sure I understand- are you saying Pitt got fleeced? to me it looks like Toronto got the short end and if they are retaining too wow.

 

[Fro]

Not sure I understand- are you saying Pitt got fleeced? to me it looks like Toronto got the short end and if they are retaining too wow.

i'm saying Crysby, Malkin, Fluery, Kessel, Kunitz, how can they fit a full roster under the cap?

and yes, TOR got HOSED

 

[CBJWerenski8]

Chicago got a better return for Saad than Toronto did for Kessel

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

But what happens if it there is no room in the NHL? Lets say after training camp/pre season, Rychel or Anderson played great but Clarkson was average. Is ownership willing to send Clarkson to the AHL and have him making all that money?

They should be. Again, I believe Clarkson makes the same regardless of where he plays -- 1st line, 4th line, press box, AHL -- the bill is the same.

If he's not helping the team and he's keeping a young player who is ready from playing, then the organization should have the stones to bench him or send him down.

Serious question -- is there a financial penalty (either real or on the cap) for demoting a guy?

I know that promoting a guy on a two-way deal does add a cost, so maybe that's a deterrent.

 

[CBJWerenski8]

They should be. Again, I believe Clarkson makes the same regardless of where he plays -- 1st line, 4th line, press box, AHL -- the bill is the same.

If he's not helping the team and he's keeping a young player who is ready from playing, then the organization should have the stones to bench him or send him down.

Serious question -- is there a financial penalty (either real or on the cap) for demoting a guy?

I know that promoting a guy on a two-way deal does add a cost, so maybe that's a deterrent.

He is owed 5.5 million on our cap and monetarily whether he's in the NHL or AHL

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Could have done that with Horton. Although I guess you could argue "you pays yer money, you takes your chances."




I don't rule it out. It's more of a roster-building thing for me.

I'm still bitter about how the whole Horton thing went down, but knowing what I think we think we maybe know, I get the desire to spend $5 million per on a guy who plays versus a guy who doesn't.

But if it turns out that Clarkson can't keep up and he truly is a roadblock to a young player, I think the organization has to have the stones to just eat it.

Like I said earlier, not doing so just feels like compounding the mistake to me.

 

[EspenK]

They should be. Again, I believe Clarkson makes the same regardless of where he plays -- 1st line, 4th line, press box, AHL -- the bill is the same.

If he's not helping the team and he's keeping a young player who is ready from playing, then the organization should have the stones to bench him or send him down.

Serious question -- is there a financial penalty (either real or on the cap) for demoting a guy?

I know that promoting a guy on a two-way deal does add a cost, so maybe that's a deterrent.

Actually there is a reward- you get to exclude minimum salary + 350k or so from the cap hit so if you bring a guy on a 2 way up it is essentially breakeven or to the good on the cap but a bit more out of pocket to pay hte guy coming up his NHL $.

 

[CBJWerenski8]

So

Kunitz-Crosby-Kessel
Scrub-Malkin-Hornqvist
Scrub-Sutter-Perron
Scrub-Scrub-Scrub

Maybe Dupuis plays but we'll see

Maata-Letang
Pouliot-Scrub
Scrub-Scrub

MAF

 

[CBJWerenski8]

Darren Dreger ‏@DarrenDreger 14s14 seconds ago

Also told Toronto is eating between15-25% of Kessel contract.

 

[Johansen2Foligno]

Pittsburgh has some serious star power. Their depth is somehow worse than last year though

 

[CBJWerenski8]

David Pagnotta ‏@TheFourthPeriod 20s20 seconds ago

Leafs are paying $1.25M of Kessel's annual salary.

 

[dru]

Once again, Toronto has more money than brains.

 

[Jackets16]

Just send him to the press box then.

If they're paying him regardless, pay him not to hurt you rather than to detract from the team.

That is what I would do, but I doubt that is what the team would do. You are paying the same if he plays or not, so field the best team. Once your payroll is set, play the best players.

 

[Jackets16]

Chicago got a better return for Saad than Toronto did for Kessel

Saad is younger and a better hockey player.