HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Florida Panthers
Notices

Seidenberg to Florida or the Rags

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-25-2009, 12:58 PM
  #26
zeroG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somerville, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,177
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Georgia Panther View Post
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.
we have more information on 2 of the 3 - they are no longer just "draft picks", they've spent time in professional hockey. i think you can project with a bit more accuracy at this point. i'm not saying they are going to make it, become impact players, etc., just that your point is not entirely relevant.

zeroG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2009, 01:12 PM
  #27
RCGP
Go Panthers
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Calgary Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,057
vCash: 500
THIS year there are 3, Robak will join the group next season and beyond (plus anyone that rises up like Comrie perhaps)

RCGP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2009, 01:30 PM
  #28
J17 Vs Proclamation
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Reading.
Country: South Korea
Posts: 7,808
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to J17 Vs Proclamation
Quote:
Originally Posted by RCGP View Post
THIS year there are 3, Robak will join the group next season and beyond (plus anyone that rises up like Comrie perhaps)
Robak has his final year of junior, and he will need an AHL season atleast before he is in the NHL fray. Ellerby is still going to need another AHL season, though its not out of the realms of possibility that he cracks the NHL at some point this year. Garrison is in a similar position, but am i the only one who would happily take Seidenberg even if it meant less room for him? He is only a prospect (and an older one). Seidenberg is a solid Defenseman, and Garrison certaintly offers no upgrade now or a large one in the future.

Seidenberg is right now, better than all of these Defenseman bar maybe Kulikov. Forgive me if i take the solid NHL D over two D prospects right now, when if it becomes apparent that they are NHL ready, a move can easily be made to implement them into the line up.

You all assume Ballard, Allen, McCabe, Leopold will be here in 2010-11. Im pretty sure that won't be the case. Turnover is high, injuries happen, so i wouldn't be worried about stopping the rookies from ice time. They get it when they show they are capable of it.

The only predicament we have with our rookies is what to do with Kulikov. We may have a Alex Piet case here. Too good for the CHL but perhaps not NHL ready.

J17 Vs Proclamation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2009, 02:01 PM
  #29
Markstrom Rules
Sup
 
Markstrom Rules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Country: United States
Posts: 16,041
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Georgia Panther View Post
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.
It's not black and white across the board, you have to treat each individual case differently. 2/3 of these kids will make it, if not all three. Ellerby and Garrison both had great rookie seasons in the AHL and have all the tools needed for NHL success, and Kulikov is simply too good to not become at least a bottom pair d-man. If we had 3 C level prospects who had mediocre seasons in the AHL last year, then your synopsis would be more apt. We have to allow that at least 2/3 will make it, and probably all three.

Quote:
Originally Posted by J17 Vs Proclamation View Post
Robak has his final year of junior, and he will need an AHL season atleast before he is in the NHL fray. Ellerby is still going to need another AHL season, though its not out of the realms of possibility that he cracks the NHL at some point this year. Garrison is in a similar position, but am i the only one who would happily take Seidenberg even if it meant less room for him? He is only a prospect (and an older one). Seidenberg is a solid Defenseman, and Garrison certaintly offers no upgrade now or a large one in the future.
Just because it took longer for Garrison to develop, doesn't mean he has a low ceiling on his potential. He is a good defense prospect, and has the potential to be quite better than Seidenberg in the future. It's also about assessing where you are as a team. Are we a team that's built to win now? No. So IMO we shouldn't be sacrificing a good younger defense prospect that can be a key contributor for us when we actually have a chance to win something for a 29 yr. old defender now.

Quote:
Seidenberg is right now, better than all of these Defenseman bar maybe Kulikov. Forgive me if i take the solid NHL D over two D prospects right now, when if it becomes apparent that they are NHL ready, a move can easily be made to implement them into the line up.
You don't know that a move can be easily made.

Quote:
You all assume Ballard, Allen, McCabe, Leopold will be here in 2010-11. Im pretty sure that won't be the case. Turnover is high, injuries happen, so i wouldn't be worried about stopping the rookies from ice time. They get it when they show they are capable of it.
Not Leopold, but I'd be pretty upset if the other 3 weren't here. There is little reason we should be looking to trade any of those guys after we just lost Bouwmeester, and you can't count on injuries to happen. If there are no injuries or anything else of that nature, then the rookies won't get ice time even if they show they are capable of it, as long as the veterans ahead of them are playing well. Some of you just assume it will all work out and one guy will get injured for 50 games here and another one for 25 games there and it will repeat the next season which will allow all our rookies to get ice time. But what if it doesn't pan out that way? Then you do have the very real problem of rookies being blocked. And I don't want any of them being blocked by a #5 d-man that doesn't even fit into our long term plans.

Anyway, like I said before, I think it's all moot because I don't think the Rangers will offer 3 years either. As long as we offer 2 years at decent money, I don't see much of a problem signing Seidenberg. 2 years I can deal with, it gives us more flexibility for a trade or amnesty buyout, or even benching.

Markstrom Rules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2009, 02:27 PM
  #30
J17 Vs Proclamation
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Reading.
Country: South Korea
Posts: 7,808
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to J17 Vs Proclamation
Seidenberg is a solid NHL player. A good 3rd pairing Defenseman IMO. How good do you believe Garrison will be? I have never seen myself, i am just going off reports etc. From what i can gather, his max upside is an average 2nd pairing Dman. Thats obviously a best case scenario. The worst case is, obviously, not being an NHL regular. You are correct, we are not in a position to win. However, the aim at this time is to become a playoff team (rightly or wrongly, i do not believe this core is strong enough to waste 2-3 years on before the next core is cycled in). Seidenberg right now is better than Garrison, and Garrison does not from what i have heard a particularly huge upside. Either way, Florida with Seidenberg or Florida with Garrison doesn't change much in ability to win hockey games.

I don't expect Ballard, McCabe or Allen to be moved, but you never know. Turnover is always fairly high, and it is always hard to forshadow what will happen in a year. Injuries are inevitable. Its naive to think injuries won't happen, and with injuries come opportunities. Even if they don't happen. DeBoer and co will choose the best player, regardless of their status, being a vet or a rookie. Signing Seidenberg isn't going to prevent any of the rookies from seeing time if they are good enough. Its not like Ville K, Leopold, Seidenberg are high end Defenseman. If management felt one of the rookies was NHL ready and could the job as well or better, they would replace the other guy im sure. I don't see it as a problem. Inserting rookie Dman into the lineup is IMO easier than offensively minded rookie forwards.

Either way, i dont see a problem. The whole nature of our D could be changed by Kulikov anyway.

J17 Vs Proclamation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2009, 03:27 PM
  #31
JonathanHuberdoh
Maybe.....next year?
 
JonathanHuberdoh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Towanna
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,990
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to JonathanHuberdoh
This team needs all the defenseman it can get.

2 years at 1.5 Million a year sounds right.

JonathanHuberdoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2009, 03:39 PM
  #32
Markstrom Rules
Sup
 
Markstrom Rules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Country: United States
Posts: 16,041
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by J17 Vs Proclamation View Post
Seidenberg is a solid NHL player. A good 3rd pairing Defenseman IMO. How good do you believe Garrison will be? I have never seen myself, i am just going off reports etc. From what i can gather, his max upside is an average 2nd pairing Dman. Thats obviously a best case scenario. The worst case is, obviously, not being an NHL regular.
Yes, your best case is pretty accurate.

Quote:
You are correct, we are not in a position to win. However, the aim at this time is to become a playoff team (rightly or wrongly, i do not believe this core is strong enough to waste 2-3 years on before the next core is cycled in). Seidenberg right now is better than Garrison, and Garrison does not from what i have heard a particularly huge upside. Either way, Florida with Seidenberg or Florida with Garrison doesn't change much in ability to win hockey games.
Not quite sure what you are saying about the core, but I think I disagree. Yes, we are aiming to become a playoff team, but I think we also have to stick to the plan. Once we get to the playoffs, we still need to be building towards something. I don't want us to make the playoffs just to make the playoffs. I don't see much sense in essentially throwing away a good defense prospect who's currently cheaper and 5 years younger than Seidenberg, and who has the potential to become better. Seidenberg isn't our last hope for the playoffs.

Quote:
I don't expect Ballard, McCabe or Allen to be moved, but you never know. Turnover is always fairly high, and it is always hard to forshadow what will happen in a year.
It's not that hard to foreshadow that those 3 will still be here though. In certain cases it is, but not with those 3 players. We just lost our star defenseman. I really don't see any reason why those 3 shouldn't still be here a year from now, unless we are trading one of them for an even better defenseman, in which case you still have the same problem.

Quote:
Injuries are inevitable. Its naive to think injuries won't happen, and with injuries come opportunities.
Yes, injuries will probably happen, but like I said on the last page, last season aside from Allen the highest number of games lost by any defenseman was 14, and some of those weren't even due to injury. Ballard and Bouw both played 82 games. I doubt another d-man misses the entire season again like Allen did, the odds are just against something like that happening two years in a row. And besides, you can't count on people being injured. You have to plan as if they won't.

Quote:
Even if they don't happen. DeBoer and co will choose the best player, regardless of their status, being a vet or a rookie. Signing Seidenberg isn't going to prevent any of the rookies from seeing time if they are good enough.
Yes, it will. For a couple reasons. Firstly, if Seidenberg is playing well, then it's doubtful any of the rookies will beat him out for a spot. That is the problem. Like I said, it's not really a problem this season, but in 2010-11 it could be. When you work in a rookie, you accept that there might be growing pains at first. But you know that it might pay off down the road, that's why you do it. If Seidenberg is blocking the way of a rookie to experience those growing pains, even if they are deemed to be NHL ready, then that's a problem. And even if he's playing mediocre, the problem with signing Seidenberg for 3 years is you don't want to upset him if he's going to be here for that long, it's bad for the lockerroom. So you can't exile him to the pressbox. And he's also going to be making at least 1.5-2M/yr. And if he's sitting in the pressbox at that salary, then that's just retarded.

Quote:
Its not like Ville K, Leopold, Seidenberg are high end Defenseman. If management felt one of the rookies was NHL ready and could the job as well or better, they would replace the other guy im sure. I don't see it as a problem. Inserting rookie Dman into the lineup is IMO easier than offensively minded rookie forwards.
Leopold gets underrated again, wow. No rookie is going to force Leopold out of the lineup, first of all. Koisty might be replaced, but it's doubtful anyone else would be. Anyway, like I said, it's not a problem until 2010-11. If we sign Seidenberg, we'd probably have 8 defensemen all capable of playing top 6 minutes in the NHL. And Garrison and Ellerby would be fed up with playing in the AHL by then. That's where the problem is.

Quote:
Either way, i dont see a problem. The whole nature of our D could be changed by Kulikov anyway.
He won't step in and be a star right away though.

Markstrom Rules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-26-2009, 08:36 AM
  #33
Beezer
I'm Da Better Goalie
 
Beezer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Orlando, Florida
Country: Brazil
Posts: 6,332
vCash: 500
I'm going to side with Clint on this one. I would like Seidenberg on the team for depth and also because I don't want to have more then 1 rookie D out there incase of injuries. Injuries have to come into play on deciding to sign another D or not because we have lost a D-man for the whole season the last 3 years(Allen last year & Van Ryn the 2years prior). Also, like he said we are going to need every D-man to step up and account for the minutes Bouw use to take.

On a side note I agree with Markstrom Rules that 3years is too much and wouldn't offer anything more than a 2year deal.

Beezer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2009, 08:43 AM
  #34
Thunderheart
Registered User
 
Thunderheart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 393
vCash: 500
Spector's Hockey Rumor

Spector's Hockey has item about Seidenberg telling a German paper that he is in negotiations/interest from Florida Panthers and NYR.

http://www.spectorshockey.net/index....umors&Itemid=4

Thunderheart

Thunderheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2009, 08:53 AM
  #35
RangerBoy
1994 FOREVER
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,545
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderheart View Post
Spector's Hockey has item about Seidenberg telling a German paper that he is in negotiations/interest from Florida Panthers and NYR.

http://www.spectorshockey.net/index....umors&Itemid=4

Thunderheart
That item from Steve Zipay was nearly one week ago when Seidenberg spoke to the German website/newspaper.

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2009, 09:50 AM
  #36
VAiN*
Infractions are bad.
 
VAiN*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: My House
Country: United States
Posts: 270
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
That item from Steve Zipay was nearly one week ago when Seidenberg spoke to the German website/newspaper.
And on the first page of the thread. Way to pay attention.

VAiN* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2009, 10:08 PM
  #37
Markstrom Rules
Sup
 
Markstrom Rules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Country: United States
Posts: 16,041
vCash: 500
I didn't want to start a new thread, but according to this site http://twitter.com/************* we are interested in Eminger along with the Rangers and Flyers. Supposedly this guy has gotten a few things right this summer. Click on "more" at the bottom of page. It's under 8/26.

Markstrom Rules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2009, 11:11 PM
  #38
harv3317
Registered User
 
harv3317's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,286
vCash: 500
well, we traded for emminger and then didn't qualify him. so now we can be in a bidding war. let's see if we can get him for less than his qualifying offer, or if we lose him. i k now he was thinking about arbitration, but we'll see what happens. i think we lose him.

harv3317 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 10:48 AM
  #39
Markstrom Rules
Sup
 
Markstrom Rules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Country: United States
Posts: 16,041
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by harv3317 View Post
well, we traded for emminger and then didn't qualify him. so now we can be in a bidding war. let's see if we can get him for less than his qualifying offer, or if we lose him. i k now he was thinking about arbitration, but we'll see what happens. i think we lose him.
You miss the point. Eminger wasn't going to accept his qualifying offer, he was going to arbitration. That's why Tampa traded him. Sexton protected the team from a potential very overpaid arbitration award.

Markstrom Rules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 03:03 PM
  #40
harv3317
Registered User
 
harv3317's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,286
vCash: 500
your missing the point. we gave up welch and a 3rd for emminger who we knew was going to arbitration!!!! so what's the point? tell me we got him for the playoff run.

harv3317 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 04:14 PM
  #41
Markstrom Rules
Sup
 
Markstrom Rules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Country: United States
Posts: 16,041
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by harv3317 View Post
your missing the point. we gave up welch and a 3rd for emminger who we knew was going to arbitration!!!! so what's the point? tell me we got him for the playoff run.
Yes, we did get him for the playoff run, what else did we get him for?

Markstrom Rules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 04:22 PM
  #42
angry_treefrog
Moderator
T63813A
 
angry_treefrog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country: Canary Islands
Posts: 6,455
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markstrom Rules View Post
Yes, we did get him for the playoff run, what else did we get him for?
If we got him for the playoff run, then it was a pretty bad move.

I get the sense that Eminger's pick up was meant as a hockey trade - not as a rental. He only became a rental when his intentions to file for arbitration became clear. I doubt things worked out the way the Panthers intended.

angry_treefrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 04:27 PM
  #43
Markstrom Rules
Sup
 
Markstrom Rules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Country: United States
Posts: 16,041
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by angry_treefrog View Post
If we got him for the playoff run, then it was a pretty bad move.

I get the sense that Eminger's pick up was meant as a hockey trade - not as a rental. He only became a rental when his intentions to file for arbitration became clear. I doubt things worked out the way the Panthers intended.
I agree in a sense- I don't think they looked at him purely as a rental, and they hoped they could negotiate what they thought was a reasonable contract with him at a price above his QO. But I think they had to know that he was going to file for arbitration when they traded for him. It was even said at the time of the trade by Tampa fans and beat writers. If the Panthers didn't get that sense, then that's pretty poor research.

I don't see how what we gave up was a bad move though. Welch and a 3rd is nothing to cry over. You aren't going to get anything more than a grinder at the deadline by paying anything less than that.

Markstrom Rules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 04:30 PM
  #44
RunAmucK
Registered User
 
RunAmucK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 298
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by angry_treefrog View Post
If we got him for the playoff run, then it was a pretty bad move.

I get the sense that Eminger's pick up was meant as a hockey trade - not as a rental. He only became a rental when his intentions to file for arbitration became clear. I doubt things worked out the way the Panthers intended.
Do they ever?

RunAmucK 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 10:55 PM.

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.