Per the Tennessean, Poile offered the same package that the Leafs did for Kessel-- 2 1sts and a 2nd, but the Bruins likely took the Leafs trade based on the idea that their first rounders will be higher than the Predators'. Poile went on to say that it might not have mattered, because they would not have paid\did not feel Kessel was worth 5.4 million per year.
He also said that we'll likely go with what we have, though keeping an eye on the waiver wire and an ear to the ground on who might be available via trade from the end of training camp through November 1, which is when he feels things usually heat up.
We'll at least Poile came out and told us he wasn't willing to pay him the 5.4m a year.
Don't agree with it... We are willing to pay Legwand/Erat $4.5m for about 20 goals a year, but not Kessel $5.4m for 36 goals? Not to mention it's a 5 year deal. $5.4m for 3 years would've been slight overpayment. But for 5 years... could be a good deal for Toronto if Kessel continues to improve.
Maybe Poile feels he made his bed giving out those contracts. But I still think one of them is movable (even with the NTC).
At first, I was fine with Legwand and Erat's NTCs. But I am now seeing why many thought it was a bad idea. I want to see both of them play this year before I judge further, but if they don't improve at all this year, one of them has to go.
However, I also don't agree with asking players to waive their NTCs, with the exception of a trade-deadline deal with a player on the last year of a contract. It just feels ethically wrong to me. But that doesn't mean something couldn't be worked out. It's a situation that you have to take very carefully.
Perhaps after the fire-sale fiasco, players were less inclined to sign here unless they had a NTC in place?
I'm confused about RFA's who haven't signed a qualifying offer, and trades... From the Tennessean:
######### Poile said the Predators would not have paid Kessel the money he was apparently looking for – and received – from Toronto after the deal was made. Kessel signed a five-year, $27 million contract, one that will count $5.4 million against the salary cap each season.
“We would never have considered that (salary),’’ Poile said. “He would have been a restricted free agent and we would have been in the same situation as … Boston was.’’
In other words, the Predators would have been immediately vulnerable to an offer sheet from Toronto, and Nashville wouldn’t have been able to match the money the Leafs would have thrown at him.
“The likely scenario is we were destined not to get the player, and Toronto, by virtue of what they offered and what they paid, they were destined to get the player,’’ Poile said.
#########
Huh? Isn't there a way to sign and trade so that you have the contract in place? If Boston AND Kessel had agreed to the trade, and Kessel signs, then how could anybody poach him from Nashville on an offer sheet? He'd already be signed.
Unless there's no way to sign and trade. But I know when the trade was announced to Toronto, they also announced the contract terms.
I'm confused about RFA's who haven't signed a qualifying offer, and trades... From the Tennessean:
######### Poile said the Predators would not have paid Kessel the money he was apparently looking for – and received – from Toronto after the deal was made. Kessel signed a five-year, $27 million contract, one that will count $5.4 million against the salary cap each season.
“We would never have considered that (salary),’’ Poile said. “He would have been a restricted free agent and we would have been in the same situation as … Boston was.’’
In other words, the Predators would have been immediately vulnerable to an offer sheet from Toronto, and Nashville wouldn’t have been able to match the money the Leafs would have thrown at him.
“The likely scenario is we were destined not to get the player, and Toronto, by virtue of what they offered and what they paid, they were destined to get the player,’’ Poile said.
#########
Huh? Isn't there a way to sign and trade so that you have the contract in place? If Boston AND Kessel had agreed to the trade, and Kessel signs, then how could anybody poach him from Nashville on an offer sheet? He'd already be signed.
Unless there's no way to sign and trade. But I know when the trade was announced to Toronto, they also announced the contract terms.
My interpretation of that is that a sign and trade wasn't going to happen because Kessel was asking for too much, so the "sign" part was lacking. The rest is folks pointing out that Poile wasn't going to just do a trade without already having a contract and try to talk Kessel down from that figure, because that'd leave Nashville vulnerable.
__________________
Remember - when you're a hockey fan, it's not "reckless driving", it's "good forechecking".
"Viqsi, you are our sweet humanist..." --mt-svk on the CBJ boards
Thanks, Howson, for cleaning up MacLean's toxic waste. Welcome, Kekalainen; let's get good things built!
What I took from it was the trade was acceptable to both Boston and Nashville, but that of course it would be contingent from Nashville's standpoint to have a contract in place with Kessel. Poile is saying that since the contract dollars and/or length was more than what he was willing to pay, all the trade would have done is transfer the rights with no possibility that the Preds would sign Kessel. Thus they would have just switched places with where Boston was before the trade. I think Poile is also confirming how determined Toronto was in getting Kessel, whereas Poile is driven (obviously) by financial constraints.
Well, if that' what they meant, while impying something else, doh. No GM in the league was going to trade for him without a contract in place.
If Poile meant trading for his rights, and Glennon somehow meant that. It would have been sort of accurate for Poile to say that, and for Glennon to say that.
To imply that somehow we pull a sign and trade, or at least agreed with the player on what he would sign, like Toronto did, and just as we would have, and yet are still vulnerable to an offer sheet. Is disingenuous.
I thought I'd ask here, because it sounds like Glennon is trying to assist in making Poile look smart. I'm glad we didn't make the trade at that price myself. But I don't need to make up stuff to assist.
Well, if that' what they meant, while impying something else, doh. No GM in the league was going to trade for him without a contract in place.
If Poile meant trading for his rights, and Glennon somehow meant that. It would have been sort of accurate for Poile to say that, and for Glennon to say that.
To imply that somehow we pull a sign and trade, or at least agreed with the player on what he would sign, like Toronto did, and just as we would have, and yet are still vulnerable to an offer sheet. Is disingenuous.
I thought I'd ask here, because it sounds like Glennon is trying to assist in making Poile look smart. I'm glad we didn't make the trade at that price myself. But I don't need to make up stuff to assist.
No, I think he's just pointing out the obvious, since some folks might think a trade without signing initially might have somehow been a good idea "because we'd have exclusive rights and we could have talked him down".
I'd have been happy with such a move, but I cheer for the opposition.
Yeah, Glennon was just stating the obvious here, but he didn't make anything up. Correct, most likely, no GM would consider the trade unless a contract was in place. Glennon probably could have explained it better though.
Yeah, Glennon was just stating the obvious here, but he didn't make anything up. Correct, most likely, no GM would consider the trade unless a contract was in place. Glennon probably could have explained it better though.
The statement was a direct quote from Poile. Glennon could have explained it better but sometimes you're so close to the situation you don't realize that others might interpret the words differently.
don't wish that on anyone.......
