HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Florida Panthers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=28)
-   -   Rumor: Seidenberg to Florida or the Rags (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=674908)

pb1300 08-24-2009 12:17 PM

Seidenberg to Florida or the Rags
 
per Seidenberg

Its in German, but it says that he does not think he will return to Carolina, and he is in talks with the Panthers and the Rangers. He is looking for a three year deal, but neither team is willing to go that long.

I would take him on a two year deal. Think it would definitely add to our defense, and like our forwards, our defensive core would have depth and skill on all three pairings.

Desert Panther 08-24-2009 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pb1300 (Post 20862308)
per Seidenberg

Its in German, but it says that he does not think he will return to Carolina, and he is in talks with the Panthers and the Rangers. He is looking for a three year deal, but neither team is willing to go that long.

I would take him on a two year deal. Think it would definitely add to our defense, and like our forwards, our defensive core would have depth and skill on all three pairings.

Quick translation by Google:

Quote:

Seidenberg: "Negotiations with Florida and the Rangers"

Marcel Goc has his new contract, Dennis Seidenberg is still waiting - and actually almost always with an eye to the phone. Several teams have reported in recent weeks already, such was his old club, the Carolina Hurricanes.

"I do not but rather think that I will play there again," says Seidenberg against hockey NEWS. "Although the Hurricanes to ask again and again with my agent JP Barry." More specifically, the talks are currently with the Florida Panthers and the New York Rangers. "My agent has spoken with both clubs over the term of the contract. I would like a three-year contract. "

However, this seems the clubs even in the opinion of Seidenberg deter a little. Background is the expiry of the contract with the players' union NHLPA end of 2011 - so in two years. "There probably some clubs fear a cut in the salary cap, so they want to remain financially flexible," said Seidenberg.

Still, even if he has postponed his honeymoon because of the unclear situation for a year (on June 27, he married his girlfriend, Rebecca), he does not worry that he unterkommt not with a new club. "My agent always tells me again that I should not worry, we will find a club." With Florida and the Rangers, there have been modified almost daily phone calls.

Seidenberg has his best NHL season point behind. In 70 main round games for the Hurricanes, he scored five goals and 25 before preparing. These come in 16 playoff games even a goal and five templates. Last year he earned about 1.2 million U.S. dollars.

Dread Clawz 08-24-2009 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Desert Panther (Post 20862379)
Quick translation by Google:

2 years max.

Clint 08-24-2009 12:52 PM

30 points last year. Puck-mover, 29 years old and entering his prime.

I'd sign him for three years. Why not?

Dread Clawz 08-24-2009 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clint (Post 20862749)
30 points last year. Puck-mover, 29 years old and entering his prime.

I'd sign him for three years. Why not?

That means we'd have to trade one of Kulikov, Ellerby, or Garrison. I don't wanna do that, I think they could all become better than Seidenberg.

PanthersRule96 08-24-2009 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Markstrom Rules (Post 20862851)
That means we'd have to trade one of Kulikov, Ellerby, or Garrison. I don't wanna do that, I think they could all become better than Seidenberg.

Or we could just trade Seidenberg eventually...
I think a two year deal makes more sense, but it doesn't mean we have to get rid of any of the rookies.

billysbreakdown 08-24-2009 01:22 PM

I thought the sixth spot was meant for a rookie?

I'd like to see us sign him for two years and have a rookie on the seventh spot.

Rattrick 08-24-2009 01:24 PM

I'd rather not sign him and sign someone who can score a damn goal... But that's just me. :shakehead

Dread Clawz 08-24-2009 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PanthersRule96 (Post 20863055)
Or we could just trade Seidenberg eventually...
I think a two year deal makes more sense, but it doesn't mean we have to get rid of any of the rookies.

There's no guarantee that you can trade him in 1 year or 2 years though. Especially if he gets a bloated UFA contract. If we can't get rid of him, then we'd have to trade one of the kids, because they won't sit around waiting in the AHL forever.

Laus723 08-24-2009 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rattrick (Post 20863172)
I'd rather not sign him and sign someone who can score a damn goal... But that's just me. :shakehead

I'd rather we have both. ;)

Pantherfan12 08-24-2009 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Markstrom Rules (Post 20862851)
That means we'd have to trade one of Kulikov, Ellerby, or Garrison. I don't wanna do that, I think they could all become better than Seidenberg.

Why? Who's to say that Allen,Koistinen will still be here, or that Ellerby,Kulikov, and Garrison won't outplay Seidenburg or anyone else and take their roster spot? I like it personally, it gives us more depth on defense and now we'd have a good defense with some options if certain players didn't pan out.

Thunderheart 08-24-2009 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rattrick (Post 20863172)
I'd rather not sign him and sign someone who can score a damn goal... But that's just me. :shakehead

...completely agree :nod:
Thunderheart

Rattrick 08-24-2009 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunderheart (Post 20863596)
...completely agree :nod:
Thunderheart

Sadly, we'll probably just do neither.

pb1300 08-24-2009 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pantherfan12 (Post 20863498)
Why? Who's to say that Allen,Koistinen will still be here, or that Ellerby,Kulikov, and Garrison won't outplay Seidenburg or anyone else and take their roster spot? I like it personally, it gives us more depth on defense and now we'd have a good defense with some options if certain players didn't pan out.

Allen aint going anywhere. Unlike Bouwmeester, he wants to be here, and I think it would useless to give away a very good defensive Dman.

Clint 08-24-2009 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Markstrom Rules (Post 20862851)
That means we'd have to trade one of Kulikov, Ellerby, or Garrison. I don't wanna do that, I think they could all become better than Seidenberg.

That's not true at all.

First, we only have 5 NHL experienced defencemen on the roster. Ballard, Allen, McCabe, Leopold, and Koistninen. It's always good to have 7 defencemen with the big club.

Which means that if we sign Seidenber, only one of Kulikov, Ellerby, and Garrison will slide into that last roster spot. I don't see anything wrong with Kulikov going back to the Q for one more year, and I see nothing wrong with one of Ellerby or Garrison in the AHL for one more year. I wouldn't want more than one rookie on defense anyway.

McCabe's contract expires at the end of 2011. As does Koistinen's. Leopold's on a one year deal.

That means that if we sign Seidenberg for three years then we have, say, Garrison as a rookie defenseman this year, Ellerby as a rookie defenseman next year, and Kulikov as a rookie defenseman the year after. At which point the defense - barring any trades or UFA signings - looks like this:

Ballard, Allen, Seidenberg, Ellerby, Garrison, Kulikov.

Dread Clawz 08-24-2009 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pantherfan12 (Post 20863498)
Why? Who's to say that Allen,Koistinen will still be here, or that Ellerby,Kulikov, and Garrison won't outplay Seidenburg or anyone else and take their roster spot? I like it personally, it gives us more depth on defense and now we'd have a good defense with some options if certain players didn't pan out.

Why in the world would we want to move Allen? I don't care about Koistinen, but Allen should not be traded just to make room for someone else. And if we relegate Seidenberg to a 7th d-man at the salary we'll probably be paying him, then that's just a horrible use of cap space. Especially in our case, when we might not even spend to the cap.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clint (Post 20863826)
That's not true at all.

First, we only have 5 NHL experienced defencemen on the roster. Ballard, Allen, McCabe, Leopold, and Koistninen. It's always good to have 7 defencemen with the big club.

Which means that if we sign Seidenber, only one of Kulikov, Ellerby, and Garrison will slide into that last roster spot. I don't see anything wrong with Kulikov going back to the Q for one more year, and I see nothing wrong with one of Ellerby or Garrison in the AHL for one more year. I wouldn't want more than one rookie on defense anyway.

I don't see how it's good to have one of our kids sitting in the 7th spot though. I'd rather they play in Rochester getting big minutes than sitting in the press box. Just sign some cheap guy as the extra d-man. So if we sign Seidenberg, I'm pretty sure no rookie will be making the team unless they have a marvelous camp. I don't think we gave Koistinen 1M just to sit in the press box. That wouldn't be a wise use of money, especially when we don't have a lot.

Quote:

McCabe's contract expires at the end of 2011. As does Koistinen's. Leopold's on a one year deal.

That means that if we sign Seidenberg for three years then we have, say, Garrison as a rookie defenseman this year, Ellerby as a rookie defenseman next year, and Kulikov as a rookie defenseman the year after. At which point the defense - barring any trades or UFA signings - looks like this:

Ballard, Allen, Seidenberg, Ellerby, Garrison, Kulikov.
Yeah, but in each year you have the rookie probably slated as the 7th d-man except for 2011-12, which doesn't make sense to me. Why would you want them sitting in the press box when they could be further developing in Rochester or on the big club? Plus, Kulikov will definitely be NHL ready by 2010-11. If we wait until 2011-12 to bring him up, he'll be back in Russia by then. And it also means we have no chance of bringing McCabe back for another year or two, which I might want to see happen.

Seidenberg for 3 yrs. just doesn't fit our plans.

Laus723 08-24-2009 04:02 PM

I'd imagine if there's a rookie in the 7th spot, he'll be a Rochester call up. Imo, while it would call for some heavy travel at times, may be best for them to earn their minutes in Rochester in order to be called up. Iow, I wouldn't mind a 7th by comittee.(sp)

KW 08-24-2009 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rattrick (Post 20863172)
I'd rather not sign him and sign someone who can score a damn goal... But that's just me. :shakehead

We don't need to sign a scorer -- Nate will take care of that, simply because he's a year older. Failing that, as an insurance policy, Koistinen will provide all the scoring we need. Fear not, ye of little faith! :sarcasm:

sinDer 08-24-2009 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pb1300 (Post 20862308)

like our forwards, our defensive core would have depth and skill on all three pairings.

Depth and skill? Did I miss a trade or an UFA signing?

pb1300 08-24-2009 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sinDer (Post 20866176)
Depth and skill? Did I miss a trade or an UFA signing?

Yes, depth and skill. We have a good mix of forwards from 1-10. While they arent superstars, there is still a good skillset there. And the same with the defense, Ballard, Allen, Cabs, and Leopold isnt a horrible top four, and Seidenberg would just add to that depth. So yes, depth and skill. That is how this team is being built for the time being, with the capability of rolling out multiple lines and pairings.

Clint 08-24-2009 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Markstrom Rules (Post 20865056)
Why in the world would we want to move Allen? I don't care about Koistinen, but Allen should not be traded just to make room for someone else. And if we relegate Seidenberg to a 7th d-man at the salary we'll probably be paying him, then that's just a horrible use of cap space. Especially in our case, when we might not even spend to the cap.



I don't see how it's good to have one of our kids sitting in the 7th spot though. I'd rather they play in Rochester getting big minutes than sitting in the press box. Just sign some cheap guy as the extra d-man. So if we sign Seidenberg, I'm pretty sure no rookie will be making the team unless they have a marvelous camp. I don't think we gave Koistinen 1M just to sit in the press box. That wouldn't be a wise use of money, especially when we don't have a lot.



Yeah, but in each year you have the rookie probably slated as the 7th d-man except for 2011-12, which doesn't make sense to me. Why would you want them sitting in the press box when they could be further developing in Rochester or on the big club? Plus, Kulikov will definitely be NHL ready by 2010-11. If we wait until 2011-12 to bring him up, he'll be back in Russia by then. And it also means we have no chance of bringing McCabe back for another year or two, which I might want to see happen.

Seidenberg for 3 yrs. just doesn't fit our plans.

Your opinion is completely valid, and to an extent I agree with you.

But your assumption that the 7th defenseman will be riding the pine is faulty. Let's assume that our top four defensemen of Allen, Ballard, McCabe and Leopold are all slated to never be healthy scratches. That leaves three guys on the bottom pairing splitting the last 82 games evenly. 164/3 = 54 games each. Hardly sitting in the press box.

And this is assuming that everyone stays healthy for all 82 games, which we all know won't happen. And it's also assuming that we never go the 7 defensemen and 11 forwards route, which will likely happen a few time considering we lost our 25+ minute guy in Bouwmeester.

Dread Clawz 08-24-2009 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clint (Post 20866913)
Your opinion is completely valid, and to an extent I agree with you.

But your assumption that the 7th defenseman will be riding the pine is faulty. Let's assume that our top four defensemen of Allen, Ballard, McCabe and Leopold are all slated to never be healthy scratches. That leaves three guys on the bottom pairing splitting the last 82 games evenly. 164/3 = 54 games each. Hardly sitting in the press box.

And this is assuming that everyone stays healthy for all 82 games, which we all know won't happen. And it's also assuming that we never go the 7 defensemen and 11 forwards route, which will likely happen a few time considering we lost our 25+ minute guy in Bouwmeester.

I see where you're coming from, I know not everybody will play 82 games. But you can't count on people being injured. Even last season, which was considered bad injury wise for our defense, aside from Allen nobody missed more than 14 games. And I doubt somebody misses the whole season again like Allen did. Caber only missed 13 games, Cully missed 14 games but he wasn't signed until the first month of the season had already passed. Boynton missed 14 games but he was a healthy scratch in a lot of those. Skrastins only missed 2 games. And that was it. Welch and Murphy only played in a few games each as the extras, and we only had to use an AHL callup for one game(Garrison). And what if our defense stays very healthy next season, what do you do then?

The 7th guy may get a few games in due to poor play from someone else, but I don't think Pete will be using a rotation with the bottom 3 guys like you suggest he might. You want to have continuity with your defense as much as possible. Forwards are a bit different, but even then you want to find chemistry and stick with lines that work. And let's face it, Seidenberg isn't going to play in only 54 games if he's completely healthy.

I don't think we'll be going 7 D and 11 F either. It's not Pete's style. Remember, he wanted Belak traded because he wanted to roll 4 lines.

RCGP 08-25-2009 02:08 AM

As long as the contract is reasonable then it would be a good move. It would take the pressure off needing a rookie on the defence, then we dont need to rush one.

Guys like Seidenberg and Koist aren't going to block anyone if they have a good camp or start to the AHL.

Of course I would be perfectly fine with the defence as is too, and we can always sign one of the leftovers (like cullimore last year) if we run into injuries.

Dread Clawz 08-25-2009 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RCGP (Post 20871190)
As long as the contract is reasonable then it would be a good move. It would take the pressure off needing a rookie on the defence, then we dont need to rush one.

Guys like Seidenberg and Koist aren't going to block anyone if they have a good camp or start to the AHL.

Of course I would be perfectly fine with the defence as is too, and we can always sign one of the leftovers (like cullimore last year) if we run into injuries.

Koistinen might not block anyone, but Seidenberg will. Anyway, it's not really a problem this year, but in 2010-11 we could have 3 rookie d-men on the team, and one not even playing regularly. Working a rookie into the lineup this season does have it's advantages. Of course, the argument against is we want to be as competitive as possible this season. It's a tough call, but mainly I just don't want Seidenberg here for 3 years. 2 years gives us more flexibility. I don't see the Rangers giving him 3 years either, and we should be able to give him more money than them, so as long as we offer 2 years at decent money I don't see a problem in us signing him.

Georgia Panther 08-25-2009 11:28 AM

You're all assuming these rooks will pan out. Odds are two of the three won't make it. Go down the draft lists throughout history and you will see the odds are pretty long for any pick not drafted in the top 5 actually making it as far as becoming an established NHL player over a number of years.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:41 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.