HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Columbus Blue Jackets
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Trade Proposal: Anton Babchuk

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-09-2009, 10:27 AM
  #51
blahblah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casework View Post
I find it laughable that it's MY comment you take issue with. Rutherford has stated he'd like to get a D prospect in return, that's all. Well, I'd also like to win the lottery.
Issue? Not really. I was honestly wondering if you had some other thought(s) that lead you to the conclusion that the majority needed that reminder. Had you simply quoted TW or the OP, I wouldn't have bothered.

The irrational Chimera talk has nothing to do with underestimating the 'Canes situation, it's desired by people who don't like him or want to use his money to pay for Babchuk.

So in reality that left you trying to debate mostly with TW on not overpaying. If you keep TW's comments in context, you realize that in both cases he doesn't feel like we'd be overpaying. I'm willing to bet cold hard cash that he completely understands the situation the 'Canes are in. And, honestly, Ruth really isn't overpaying. You seem to indiate that the 'Canes want a d prospect in return won't happen. A marginal d prospect for an NHL player with no roster player in return? Seems fairly rational and believable.


Last edited by blahblah: 09-09-2009 at 10:33 AM.
blahblah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2009, 10:38 AM
  #52
Casework
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Columbus, OH
Country: United States
Posts: 5,739
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blahblah View Post
I have no idea what the internal discussion would be on this guy. He's a project and the idea of him and Russell being the 5/6 doesn't fill me with joy. Having said that, he fills a need so the net result could very well be a gain. Perhaps a large one. Then again he could implode and end up being scratched.

What is this guys salary demands? If you can sign him for 2 or 3 years for a couple of million per, I think you can tweak the current roster and come up some of the cash to offset the dollars.

As far as desperation goes, I'm trying to be realistic. We've put together a decent group of d for 12.8 million, 27th in the league. Honestly, it's a testiment to the players and the coaching staff that we've managed to be competitive with that investment (if you take out Backman's money last year we were like 29th in spending) considering the teams floating around us with that level of investment as well. At this point, Howson has an obligation to the team, fans, coaching staff, and ownership group to resolve this issue. He's done a great job of patching together a group that can make us competitive, but he now has to finish the job. We got lucky on the injury front on the d group last year. When Klesla went down we could call on Methot. Not sure we can hope for that level or health or luck in the event of injury this year.

When you consider we are 30th in the league in spending on goaltending as well, that leads you to the conclusion that we've left ourselves exposed on the entire backend.

We have depth on Wing, but everywhere else we are simply treading water at best.

I'm not blaming Howson or the ownership group this situation. But there is a sense of desperation on my part. I can see the iceberg.

At the end of the day, are we really going to get the oppurtunity at anything better for the cost in near future? This is not my first choice, what we need isn't something that teams let walk.
Great post, I agree with a lot of it.

Babchuk made $1 million last year and turned down Carolina's offer of 1 year, $1.1 million and asked to be traded. The consensus seems to be that he would sign for $2 million at most, maybe less. Certainly the rift in the relationship is part of what made him not want to accept the qualifying offer.

Regarding him on the bottom pairing with Russell, I'd probably split the 6/7 duties between Methot and Russell evenly and also based on opponents. More physical games or against teams with high offensive talent that needs shut down, I'd roll Babchuk-Methot. Playing against most of the East and less physical teams in the West, I'd be fine with Babchuk-Russell. What I keep coming back to is the fact that a lot of the season was Russell-Backman on the bottom pairing with Methot filling in for Klesla and we were OK most nights. I don't see any reason to believe Babchuk will be a downgrade from Backman in any way.

Here's the thing, and you kind of alluded to it - we're not going to get a much better shot at a player to fill our needs than this.

Ehrhoff may have been better/more reliable overall but his price was also higher. A player you sign in this price range ($1.5-2 million) is going to have some problems, sure. But Kristian Huselius has his weaknesses and he makes nearly $5 million a year.

You're not going to get a player better than Babchuk that isn't also more expensive.

The only other option is to let our prospects develop, and that is a perfectly fine option with Moore, Regner, and others still developing. But you can't totally rely on your prospects to fill every single hole. Howson knows that, why else did he sign Huselius, trade for Umberger, and sign Pahlsson? Because you're not going to fill every need from the organization and you can't ignore glaring weaknesses forever. You'll always end up paying a little more through trade or free agency than you would developing a prospect. But one of the big advantages of signing Babchuk for, say, 3 years is that we aren't forced to rush Moore or Regner to the NHL based on needs. Maybe we could even afford to send Russell back to Syracuse again.


Last edited by Casework: 09-09-2009 at 10:44 AM.
Casework is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2009, 10:41 AM
  #53
Casework
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Columbus, OH
Country: United States
Posts: 5,739
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blahblah View Post
Issue? Not really. I was honestly wondering if you had some other thought(s) that lead you to the conclusion that the majority needed that reminder. Had you simply quoted TW or the OP, I wouldn't have bothered.

The irrational Chimera talk has nothing to do with underestimating the 'Canes situation, it's desired by people who don't like him or want to use his money to pay for Babchuk.

So in reality that left you trying to debate mostly with TW on not overpaying. If you keep TW's comments in context, you realize that in both cases he doesn't feel like we'd be overpaying. I'm willing to bet cold hard cash that he completely understands the situation the 'Canes are in. And, honestly, Ruth really isn't overpaying. You seem to indiate that the 'Canes want a d prospect in return won't happen. A marginal d prospect for an NHL player with no roster player in return? Seems fairly rational and believable.
All I'm saying was people were posting some unrealistic names based on what we'd be willing to give up and the position Rutherford has put himself in. That's all. You're trying to make something up about a simple comment I made for certain people to keep their expectations in check.

Ruth for Babchuk could happen.

Chimera, Ruth, and a pick for Babchuk will not happen.

Period.

Casework is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2009, 10:57 AM
  #54
blahblah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casework View Post
All I'm saying was people were posting some unrealistic names based on what we'd be willing to give up and the position Rutherford has put himself in. That's all. You're trying to make something up about a simple comment I made for certain people to keep their expectations in check.

Period.
I didn't make anything up. As I said if you had quoted someone I wouldn't have said a word.

Quote:
Chimera, Ruth, and a pick for Babchuk will not happen.

Period.
Thanks for letting me know. I was really confused. I mean, I thought there was a real chance this was going to happen. That "Period." part really pushed me over the edge. I mean, I didn't think you were serious until that. So authoritative. That's why they pay you the big bucks.

blahblah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2009, 10:57 AM
  #55
Ludicrous Speed
Registered User
 
Ludicrous Speed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Killumbus
Country: Micronesia
Posts: 10,999
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macster View Post
To me this issue is simple- every team interested in Babchuk has more leverage than Rutherford because the Canes have already made it known they want to get rid of him. If they want any sort of compensation they, not the teams trading for him, will have to bite the bullet a bit.

That said, he will still cost something. Trading Klesla for him just because you don't like Klesla is ridiculous. Klesla is worth more to this team than many know. His play in the playoffs were a great sign. Goloubef is a very strong prospect, and one the team can't and likely won't give up for a guy like Babchuk. Ruth maybe, because although he is a high-end prospect, he plays a hell of a lot like Methot, who obviously just re-signed. We need to keep the prospects who can move the puck, it's a severe deficiency in the organization.

Also, the team likely isn't willing to move a first or second rounder. Budget teams (like us) rely on those two rounds to re-stock the team. Now, if we are talking third or lower, yeah, that would make sense. It also fits in with Babchuk's current value.

I would think there are two options

Babchuk for Ruth OR Babchuk for a 3rd and 5th

ALL of that said, we would still need to move salary to accomodate him, so another move would need to take place (looking at you, Chimmer) Carolina is tight financially so a Chimmer for Babchuk trade probably wouldn't be in the cards. Basically unless ownership approves the additional salary, and Carolina accepts a trade for a prospect or a pick(s) then this trade likely won't happen.

You don't overypay to a team with minimal leverage.
Bang on.

Ludicrous Speed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2009, 11:11 AM
  #56
Casework
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Columbus, OH
Country: United States
Posts: 5,739
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blahblah View Post
I didn't make anything up. As I said if you had quoted someone I wouldn't have said a word.



Thanks for letting me know. I was really confused. I mean, I thought there was a real chance this was going to happen. That "Period." part really pushed me over the edge. I mean, I didn't think you were serious until that. So authoritative. That's why they pay you the big bucks.
No, you get it, because clearly you're the smartest person in the room. But all of my comments were based on other comments or discussions going on in this thread. But I don't know why I have to explain myself in the first place, because you're just going to come back with a post saying, "I know that, I'm not stupid."

I'm not going to quote 4 or 5 different people to respond to specifically out of the group of people discussing in this thread. If you can't read the entire thread to get a context of why I would make a comment, that's your problem. But when you ask me to explain myself and then I do, that should be the end of it. Instead you try to explain to me like I'm a third grader who my discussion should have been specifically directed towards and what kind of discourse I should have with that person.

Casework is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2009, 12:02 PM
  #57
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Blue Jacket's Curse
 
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 12,301
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macster View Post

You don't overypay to a team with minimal leverage.
True.

But what people aren't accounting for is that Columbus also has minimal leverage.

The irony of the trade debates of the last month or so is that we stomp our feet and say, "Hey, bud, we're not going to give you what you want because we're the ones taking the 'bad' contract!" as if we're the ones in the better position, but what is apparent is that Columbus really isn't in a better position (merely a different one) and is probably hearing that exact same thing.

Teams that are cutting salary don't want money in return and in order for Columbus to add salary it has to cut salary. Stalemate.

I'd like to believe that Howson has the freedom to make an addition and then try to address the issue of subtraction, if need be. I'd like to believe that.
But - and I realize that my Ehrhoff affection is threatening to bump TW-Brad Richards off the cover of HF Weekly - I think if that were the case, Howson would've traded for Ehrhoff (more well-rounded than Babchuk, more defensively reliable and already under contract).


Last edited by KallioWeHardlyKnewYe: 09-09-2009 at 12:12 PM.
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2009, 12:11 PM
  #58
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Blue Jacket's Curse
 
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 12,301
vCash: 500
And as for Babchuk's projected cost. $2 million per would be great. Considering he had 16 goals and 30+ points last year, I'd be surprised if he isn't seeking more.

If he IS seeking about $2 million per it makes me all the more frustrated that we don't just go out there, toss up a pick or young defensive d man and get it done, budget be damned.

KallioWeHardlyKnewYe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2009, 12:16 PM
  #59
Vagrant
The Czech Condor
 
Vagrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 19,990
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Vagrant
A few points from reading, and thank you for the kind words.

1. Babchuk's QO was not $1.1 million, but rather $1.0 million. Per the CBA, his QO was not required to increase as a player that made at or in excess of $1.0 million. The required increase for a player that makes under $660k is 110%, 660k to $999,999 is 105% increase, and $1 million and above is 100% to retain the player rights.

2. Babchuk has not even discussed contract numbers with Carolina, so any salary estimations you have heard are fan approximations. Carolina, by virtue of Babchuk giving up a year of his restricted status by defecting to Russia, lost his arbitration rights or at least delayed them for a season. As a sort of "in your face" move, Jim Rutherford said he wasn't going to give him a thin dime of an increase on that QO and if he wanted to play for it then he'd have him back. If not, he could "go play in Russia". Serious tension. Not all of Babchuk's creation.

3. Carolina only has leverage to the extent that they have teams competing for his services. As I pointed out earlier, the ceiling on that would be a 2nd round pick. However, if a team is more comfortable giving up a prospect that has value in excess of a 2nd round pick as opposed to giving up the pick, then that wouldn't be entirely unreasonable either. The Rangers have been mentioned as a potential landing spot and they have a glut of cusp NHL defenders and former first round picks on the blueline that would make more sense to deal than a 2nd rounder, which could turn into an impact forward they need.

4. My estimation, and based only upon what Babchuk has contended he has wanted all along, is that he would take a 2 year deal for $1.4 to $1.6 million to take him to unrestricted status. He wants the ability to pick his locale and would likely leave a bit of money on the table in the interim to get there.

Vagrant is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2009, 12:18 PM
  #60
pete goegan
HFBoards Sponsor
 
pete goegan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 11,529
vCash: 500
The budget may be damned, but it can't be ignored.

pete goegan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2009, 12:24 PM
  #61
blahblah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casework View Post
No, you get it, because clearly you're the smartest person in the room. But all of my comments were based on other comments or discussions going on in this thread. But I don't know why I have to explain myself in the first place, because you're just going to come back with a post saying, "I know that, I'm not stupid."
You answered my initial question in a round-about-way after much drama. Thanks. Initially I was wondering if you had thought about it more and had something else to add and I was just missing it. I can see now, that was not the case.

The funny part was that I wasn't even trying to attack you.

blahblah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2009, 12:29 PM
  #62
blahblah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,394
vCash: 500
Good summary of the situation Vagrant. Thanks.

blahblah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2009, 12:32 PM
  #63
Fro
Yes Cbus has hockey
 
Fro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Drinking With Carts
Country: United States
Posts: 14,255
vCash: 500
And if my understanding is correct, if Babchuk's shot gets our lack of power play goals having selves into the second round of the playoffs, he pays for himself, and no budget worries... !!!

Fro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2009, 12:36 PM
  #64
blahblah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fro View Post
And if my understanding is correct, if Babchuk's shot gets our lack of power play goals having selves into the second round of the playoffs, he pays for himself, and no budget worries... !!!
If you are to believe Jackets ownership, making the SCF would not have had us break even last year. I am not completely sure I believe that. But, based on the information at hand, baring sell out's all year (if even then), that would not appear to be the case.

blahblah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2009, 12:40 PM
  #65
dru
Jarmo Unchained
 
dru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: CBUS
Country: United States
Posts: 6,389
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to dru
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vagrant View Post
4. My estimation, and based only upon what Babchuk has contended he has wanted all along, is that he would take a 2 year deal for $1.4 to $1.6 million to take him to unrestricted status. He wants the ability to pick his locale and would likely leave a bit of money on the table in the interim to get there.
If Babchuk goes to the Rangers or Devils and signs a 2 year deal at $1.4 million a season and Howson does nothing to address our PP leading into camp, I would be so pissed. $1.4 million to potentially fix our PP and have a better shot at going back to the playoffs seems too good to be true.

How often are you going to be able to acquire a 25 year old, 6'5", right handed shooting defenseman, with 5 years of NHL experience, that scored 16 goals the season before for a mid-level prospect? Geeeez.

dru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2009, 12:48 PM
  #66
blahblah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dru View Post
If Babchuk goes to the Rangers or Devils and signs a 2 year deal at $1.4 million a season and Howson does nothing to address our PP leading into camp, I would be so pissed. $1.4 million to potentially fix our PP and have a better shot at going back to the playoffs seems too good to be true.

How often are you going to be able to acquire a 25 year old, 6'5", right handed shooting defenseman, with 5 years of NHL experience, that scored 16 goals the season before for a mid-level prospect? Geeeez.
Just a reminder. Howson and the coaching staff might not have the same impressions on his overall game that you do. That and Howson likely doesn't know what the contract demands are. I find it unlikely that's it's 1.4 per year, however.

If we trade Ruth and get a guy that wants 3.5 mil, it's pretty much a waste.

blahblah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2009, 12:51 PM
  #67
Vagrant
The Czech Condor
 
Vagrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 19,990
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Vagrant
Quote:
Originally Posted by dru View Post
If Babchuk goes to the Rangers or Devils and signs a 2 year deal at $1.4 million a season and Howson does nothing to address our PP leading into camp, I would be so pissed. $1.4 million to potentially fix our PP and have a better shot at going back to the playoffs seems too good to be true.

How often are you going to be able to acquire a 25 year old, 6'5", right handed shooting defenseman, with 5 years of NHL experience, that scored 16 goals the season before for a mid-level prospect? Geeeez.
The thing that convinces me further that Babchuk has a price that is right in line with the $1.5 million mark would be the issue of his already tarnished reputation. He is already dangerously close to being labeled a malcontent and his camp has to know that. His salary demands are also crippled by the same ties that prevent Carolina from getting full value for him, which is obviously his complete lack of negotiating power. He has said he wants to play in the NHL next season, which means that whatever team traded for him would have almost universal power over his career from that point. If he balks at signing with any team that picked him up from Carolina, then he would probably be out of the league for good or at the very least have to take the $1 million QO or else not be paid for hockey this season. As a non arbitration eligible RFA, he has very few options if the KHL is not on the table which he has insisted that it is not. He made some pretty disparaging remarks about that league on the way out that could have possibly lead to him not getting an invite to the Russia evaluation camp behind the likes of Oleg Tverdovsky for example. However, that is neither here nor there other than to say that he has burned a few bridges in the homeland.

If any team made the concession to give him more than $1.5 million, they would have to be desperate to the point of no return. To give a player in excess of a 150% of his previous salary when he comes with all the baggage that Babchuk does would be.... questionable at best.

Vagrant is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2009, 12:57 PM
  #68
Vagrant
The Czech Condor
 
Vagrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 19,990
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Vagrant
Quote:
Originally Posted by blahblah View Post
Just a reminder. Howson and the coaching staff might not have the same impressions on his overall game that you do. That and Howson likely doesn't know what the contract demands are. I find it unlikely that's it's 1.4 per year, however.

If we trade Ruth and get a guy that wants 3.5 mil, it's pretty much a waste.
The thing about his potential contract is that if any team was convinced he was a player that was worth $1,307,811 - $2,615,623, they would have already offered him an offer sheet and given up the 2nd round compensatory pick. The fact that we have not seen that, and his agent has been active in shopping him for the past few months, is evidence to me that no team out there is willing to give up that compensation when his value falls in the lower end of that compensation bracket.

If a team was convinced he was a $3 million per year player, they would have no problem making the $2.6 million offer to him and giving up the proper compensation for it. It would be a no brainer that Carolina wouldn't even match the $1.31 number and would walk away with the 2nd round pick from any team smiling.

Vagrant is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2009, 01:01 PM
  #69
Aging Goalie
 
Aging Goalie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lima, Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 1,625
vCash: 500
Honestly if he is only looking for around 1.4 mill why do we trade at all? Make the offer sheet and pay the pick. Then go searching with the other players that have been mentioned as trade pieces to strengthen other weaknesses we have. We would actually be in a better position that way because we can justify a better stance as not needing to make a trade at that point.

Aging Goalie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2009, 01:02 PM
  #70
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Blue Jacket's Curse
 
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 12,301
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vagrant View Post
The thing about his potential contract is that if any team was convinced he was a player that was worth $1,307,811 - $2,615,623, they would have already offered him an offer sheet and given up the 2nd round compensatory pick. The fact that we have not seen that, and his agent has been active in shopping him for the past few months, is evidence to me that no team out there is willing to give up that compensation when his value falls in the lower end of that compensation bracket.

If a team was convinced he was a $3 million per year player, they would have no problem making the $2.6 million offer to him and giving up the proper compensation for it. It would be a no brainer that Carolina wouldn't even match the $1.31 number and would walk away with the 2nd round pick from any team smiling.
Not necessarily. Columbus, for example, can't just add a contract without subtracting one.

KallioWeHardlyKnewYe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2009, 01:06 PM
  #71
Ludicrous Speed
Registered User
 
Ludicrous Speed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Killumbus
Country: Micronesia
Posts: 10,999
vCash: 500
I think we should go find a team that's willing to take Chimera for a 3rd-5th rounder or a minor prospect. Any team will do. Just rid us of his salary so we can ****ing improve this defense.

Ludicrous Speed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2009, 01:07 PM
  #72
Vagrant
The Czech Condor
 
Vagrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 19,990
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Vagrant
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aging Goalie View Post
Honestly if he is only looking for around 1.4 mill why do we trade at all? Make the offer sheet and pay the pick. Then go searching with the other players that have been mentioned as trade pieces to strengthen other weaknesses we have. We would actually be in a better position that way because we can justify a better stance as not needing to make a trade at that point.
The ideology behind that is Babchuk is not worth a 2nd round pick in trade right now, but in terms of value he is worth the compensation according to the league mandated chart. He is a unique situation. A team will end up trading an asset that will be less valuable than a 2nd round pick, and then negotiate a deal with him that will probably fall into that $1.3 to $2.6 category.

Why give up a 2nd round pick when you can have the same player on the same contract without giving it up if you can convince the team to take an asset that you would more quickly part with?

Vagrant is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2009, 01:12 PM
  #73
Double-Shift Lassť
Moderator
Just post better
 
Double-Shift Lassť's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Superurban Cbus
Country: United States
Posts: 17,592
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludicrous Speed View Post
I think we should go find a team that's willing to take Chimera for a 3rd-5th rounder or a minor prospect. Any team will do. Just rid us of his salary so we can ****ing improve this defense.
Could be happening as we speak. Perhaps (isn't all of what we're saying on here 'perhaps'? but anyway) Howson has added the notion of two moves to address the d and clear some budget room to the idea of accomplishing both in the same maneuver (Chimera for Ehrhoff, i.e.). And perhaps he'll find a taker. Or perhaps he won't, given the number of decent FA players available without a contract or offered camp tryouts.

This could explain why the 'team in question is in no hurry' according to the one report. Howson doesn't want to have made one move without having the other in his back pocket. In the real world, that can be a tricky thing to do.

Again, I agree with you, just pointing out some stuff that muddies the water.

__________________
"Every game, every point is a necessity." -- Ty Conklin, January 2007
"I'll have a chance to compete for the post of first issue. This is the most important thing." -- Sergei Bobrovsky, June 2012
Double-Shift Lassť is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2009, 01:21 PM
  #74
blahblah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vagrant View Post
The thing about his potential contract is that if any team was convinced he was a player that was worth $1,307,811 - $2,615,623, they would have already offered him an offer sheet and given up the 2nd round compensatory pick. The fact that we have not seen that, and his agent has been active in shopping him for the past few months, is evidence to me that no team out there is willing to give up that compensation when his value falls in the lower end of that compensation bracket.

If a team was convinced he was a $3 million per year player, they would have no problem making the $2.6 million offer to him and giving up the proper compensation for it. It would be a no brainer that Carolina wouldn't even match the $1.31 number and would walk away with the 2nd round pick from any team smiling.
Sound enough logic, but 2.6 might has well be 3.5 for us at this point. I'll admit I forgot that his agent could actually be in talks with other GM's. Having said that, teams are resistant to giving up 2nd round picks. They tend to make good bargaining chips. In our case a mid-level prospect might make more sense. You pretty much covered that in a later post.

blahblah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2009, 01:25 PM
  #75
blahblah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludicrous Speed View Post
I think we should go find a team that's willing to take Chimera for a 3rd-5th rounder or a minor prospect. Any team will do. Just rid us of his salary so we can ****ing improve this defense.
Well start working on it. If you were a rival GM would you want a 1.875 million p/y contract over 3 years that, at best, might be on your checking line?

blahblah 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 03:51 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.