HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > St. Louis Blues
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

3/7/09 St. Louis @ Florida

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-09-2009, 09:53 AM
  #101
Overkamp
Registered User
 
Overkamp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 2,161
vCash: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2 Minute Minor View Post
You're expecting McKee to be bought out or somehow traded?
It's been widely speculated that if he cannot be traded in the offseason (which isn't likely) then he will probably be bought out.

I think they would have to pay him $2.6 million of the $4 million contract and the Blues would only take a $1.4 million cap hit. I think that's correct but I could be wrong. There are others on here who are cap/cba gurus who could tell you exactly.. but that's close.

In fact, I'd rather have Weaver play McKee's minutes and he'll cost less than $1 million per year. He's been really good this year IMHO.

Overkamp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2009, 10:26 AM
  #102
jmwc95
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overkamp View Post
It's been widely speculated that if he cannot be traded in the offseason (which isn't likely) then he will probably be bought out.

I think they would have to pay him $2.6 million of the $4 million contract and the Blues would only take a $1.4 million cap hit. I think that's correct but I could be wrong. There are others on here who are cap/cba gurus who could tell you exactly.. but that's close.

In fact, I'd rather have Weaver play McKee's minutes and he'll cost less than $1 million per year. He's been really good this year IMHO.
If McKee was bought out for the remaining 1 year @ $4MM left on his contract, he would be paid 2/3 of that sum ($2.666MM), and the cap hit would be spread out over two seasons (twice the remaining length of the contract), $1.333MM in 09-10 and $1.333MM in 10-11.

jmwc95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2009, 10:33 AM
  #103
Overkamp
Registered User
 
Overkamp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 2,161
vCash: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmwc95 View Post
If McKee was bought out for the remaining 1 year @ $4MM left on his contract, he would be paid 2/3 of that sum ($2.666MM), and the cap hit would be spread out over two seasons (twice the remaining length of the contract), $1.333MM in 09-10 and $1.333MM in 10-11.
Thanks.

I'm going to guess this is what the Blues plan on doing. Just my 2 cents.

Overkamp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2009, 03:02 PM
  #104
woodr0w
Registered User
 
woodr0w's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Tulsa, OK
Country: United States
Posts: 198
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmwc95 View Post
First of all, it's not a rule that you have to play one d-pairing 25+ minutes a night. You could play them all equally, or play the ones who are playing well the most.
Re-read the post. I never said or even implied that there's some set, unchanging "correct" way to distribute minutes among d pairings. That's obnoxious. One look at the Blues' TOI log for a game where they get 10 power plays versus one where they get 10 penalties is enough to understand that. I asked whether or not you thought cutting out some of Jackman's minutes and giving them to guys like Strachan, Weaver, Woywitka, etc. (and remember, McKee/Polak/Brewer aren't available for significant stretches) would actually improve the team's chances of winning, which is what your argument implied. You never gave an answer, but I tend to assume it'd be "yes" based on the rest of this post. For someone who was knocking me for misinterpreting a few sentences, you sure have been putting a lot of words in my mouth throughout this discussion...


Quote:
Originally Posted by jmwc95 View Post
The same way you think it's favoratism allowing Brewer to play so much, I feel the same way about Jackman.
I consider Brewer's situation different for several reasons, but like I said - that's a different discussion and not one I really feel like getting into. Especially considering that in the case of Jackman, I don't even agree that the player in question is playing poorly, so it's not really worth addressing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jmwc95 View Post
If Jackman cannot handle the #1 d-pairing duties, rotate him out with someone who is playing better....Jackman has been in the league for 7 seasons. Two of his best 3 years were the first two years after the lockout (the third being his rookie season). He was only -6 on the worst team in Blues history, and then he was +20 the following year....
Again...this is where the convo pretty much stops. You don't think Jackman's overall play is worth the number of minutes he's getting; I do. Your anecdotal evidence probably isn't going to change my opinion, and mine's probably not going to change yours. And if all else you can do to support your "Jackman's-not-a-top-4-defenseman" claim is throw out a stat like +/- (which is a notoriously unreliable measure of a player's defensive performance), then I'm done pursuing it.

woodr0w is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2009, 03:59 PM
  #105
jmwc95
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,002
vCash: 500
I can throw out GA/60 minutes, but you'll just throw that out as well. Every stat I can come up with will show Jackman is a mediocre defenseman the past two seasons.

I never said you thought that Jackman had to play 25+ minutes, I was simply stating that Murray shouldn't do it. Who do I think would do better? I think that Polak, Strachan, Weaver, and maybe McKee and Colaiacovo could perform the defensive role as good if not better, but we'll never find out because Murray will keep putting Jackman out there.

Also, I never quoted you, I was simply trying to counter your argument.

jmwc95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2009, 05:03 PM
  #106
Celtic Note
Chi Town Bound
 
Celtic Note's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 8,637
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmwc95 View Post
I can throw out GA/60 minutes, but you'll just throw that out as well. Every stat I can come up with will show Jackman is a mediocre defenseman the past two seasons.

I never said you thought that Jackman had to play 25+ minutes, I was simply stating that Murray shouldn't do it. Who do I think would do better? I think that Polak, Strachan, Weaver, and maybe McKee and Colaiacovo could perform the defensive role as good if not better, but we'll never find out because Murray will keep putting Jackman out there.

Also, I never quoted you, I was simply trying to counter your argument.

Celtic Note is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:28 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.