Arbitration question for Tom_Benjamin
View Single Post
11-24-2004, 02:51 AM
Join Date: Sep 2003
Originally Posted by
I'm still fairly confident that Lowe could have gotten a decent return for him at the deadline though.
If a team with a shot could use him, they'd probably be happier if he was about to become a UFA than if he was an RFA. Rentals are rentals and Todd would be a rental. The Oilers could have traded him anyway. Although the Marchant type player isn't the type of player we normally see moved.
I agree with what you say about these deadline deals. I can't understand the price some of these teams paid to play a guy for a few weeks. I do think they are sometimes more complicated than they appear. Sometimes teams have to clear roster spots. Ottawa almost has to be a buyer at the deadline because they have so many prospects and so few jobs.
One of the thing that amazes me about the best teams is that they have to dump so much talent. When you are building you can stick three or four young players in the lineup. When you become good you have to work to find roster spots. It is easy to develop players when you have quality ice time to dish out. It gets a lot harder when the team is good enough that rookie mistakes really cost and you have some great players sucking up disproportionate amounts of time.
It still seems nuts to me to say that there was a market for Marchant at 5 years/19 mil, but there was no market for him in a trade, where he would have been an RFA with limited earning power, albeit recourse to arbitration. It's illogical. The good outcomes for Lowe for a gamble of 250K seem pretty numerous to me, the risk low.
I'm stunned there was that market for him, too, but this isn't as big of a contradiction as it first seems. A team that would sign Marchant as a free agent and a team that would trade for him can be two different beasts. I can see a contender trading for him at the deadline but I can't see a contender wooing him as a free agent. I can't see a Columbus giving up prospects for him at the deadline, but they did make a free agent offer.
On a different topic, you're a Canucks fan, why did Burke let Letowski go? The topic of Moreau has been raised in the Lowe thread-I don't think it makes sense to pay him what he makes (excellent example of the results exceeding the underlying talent this year), and I've cited Letowski as an example of the type of replacement out there. He got two years and 1.5 mil in Columbus. I've always seen him as a third line type-am I wrong?
He let Letowski go because he wanted the roster spot. It has become hard to improve the Canucks and upgrading Letowski was one way to do it. Again it is a mark of quality when you are upgrading Letowski because he is a useful player. Burke wanted more toughness in the lineup night after night from the bottom half of his lineup. Burke used Letowski's money to sign Arvedson and Crawford gave most of his ice time to Ruutu.
Letowski usually got fourth line ice time in Vancouver, but he killed penalties and when injuries piled up, he could assume a larger role.
View Public Profile
Visit Tom_Benjamin's homepage!
Find More Posts by Tom_Benjamin