HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Marc Staal

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-04-2010, 10:29 PM
  #51
I am the Liquor
finger sniffer
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 35,087
vCash: 1271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Everest View Post
Thats always made the most sense but you were saying your concerned the Oilers won't be a winner in that 4 year window.

Like I said though... A guy who plays great for 25-30 minutes/game can make your team a whole lot better in a hurry.

It wouldn't be the same as Pronger's insta-boost in 06' but it really wouldn't be that far off either.

The only thing Staal can't do is run the PP. Everything else he's going to have in his back pocket most nights. He's just now coming of age.
Dont worry. You and me will put something together and get this done. DB can thank us later.

I am the Liquor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2010, 11:19 PM
  #52
NoTradeClause
Registered User
 
NoTradeClause's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 377
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by koeltrain View Post
One: it's not like we have Hall all sealed up... not sure why everyone is assuming we do.

Two: IMO Ebrele and MPS would be better off in the AHL and SEL respectively. No need to bring them into a complete disaster team.
I agree but Springfield isn't really a winning program either. Yikes

NoTradeClause is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2010, 10:29 AM
  #53
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Everest View Post
Thats always made the most sense but you were saying your concerned the Oilers won't be a winner in that 4 year window.
That's exactly my point (and why I don't think something like this will work).

From a Oilers perspective, you want him locked up for a longer period to get a lot out of him (and to have him for when you actually turn the corner). From a Rangers perspective, you don't mind that either.

Where it becomes dicey for the Rangers is if you give him a 4 year deal. After those 4 years he's a UFA and you can potentially lose him. The question is, do you want to keep him for those 4 years, or take a pretty good draft pick as compensation?

From an Oilers perspective, if you want your best chance at getting him, you offer him 4 years. The problem (which I alluded to earlier) is that this team isn't in any position to compete in at least the first 2-3 of those years. Those end up being wasted years, especially if he bolts after year 4.

I think the only way the Oilers can get him is a value for value trade, then lock him up on their terms for as long as they can.

__________________
TheSpecialist - MacT thinks he was that good of a hockey player when in actuality he was no better then a Louie Debrusk.
dawgbone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2010, 10:35 AM
  #54
I am the Liquor
finger sniffer
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 35,087
vCash: 1271
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone View Post
That's exactly my point (and why I don't think something like this will work).

From a Oilers perspective, you want him locked up for a longer period to get a lot out of him (and to have him for when you actually turn the corner). From a Rangers perspective, you don't mind that either.

Where it becomes dicey for the Rangers is if you give him a 4 year deal. After those 4 years he's a UFA and you can potentially lose him. The question is, do you want to keep him for those 4 years, or take a pretty good draft pick as compensation?

From an Oilers perspective, if you want your best chance at getting him, you offer him 4 years. The problem (which I alluded to earlier) is that this team isn't in any position to compete in at least the first 2-3 of those years. Those end up being wasted years, especially if he bolts after year 4.

I think the only way the Oilers can get him is a value for value trade, then lock him up on their terms for as long as they can.
I doubt the Rangers would have any interest in trading him for any player we currently have. And we certainly arent using this years top pick to get him.

I doubt the rangers would be as picky about term as you suggest. It would be about cap space for them.

I am the Liquor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2010, 11:00 AM
  #55
Everest
Registered User
 
Everest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 10,411
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone View Post
That's exactly my point (and why I don't think something like this will work).

From a Oilers perspective, you want him locked up for a longer period to get a lot out of him (and to have him for when you actually turn the corner). From a Rangers perspective, you don't mind that either.

Where it becomes dicey for the Rangers is if you give him a 4 year deal. After those 4 years he's a UFA and you can potentially lose him. The question is, do you want to keep him for those 4 years, or take a pretty good draft pick as compensation?

From an Oilers perspective, if you want your best chance at getting him, you offer him 4 years. The problem (which I alluded to earlier) is that this team isn't in any position to compete in at least the first 2-3 of those years. Those end up being wasted years, especially if he bolts after year 4.

I think the only way the Oilers can get him is a value for value trade, then lock him up on their terms for as long as they can.
What could the Oilers possibly still be lacking in -say - 2 years?!

It all depends on what they do at this trade deadline. This deadline is like a garage sale to save the house.

Everest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2010, 11:23 AM
  #56
myteammytown
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 508
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am the Liquor View Post
I doubt the Rangers would have any interest in trading him for any player we currently have. And we certainly arent using this years top pick to get him.

I doubt the rangers would be as picky about term as you suggest. It would be about cap space for them.

the term in an offer sheet scenario can have huge ramifications towards compensation.

myteammytown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2010, 11:27 AM
  #57
Petro Points
Registered User
 
Petro Points's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 14,343
vCash: 500
Sather is going to get fired if he trades away Staal.. Sather is gonna get fired if the rangers miss the playoffs... Sather u know what to

Petro Points is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2010, 12:02 PM
  #58
I am the Liquor
finger sniffer
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 35,087
vCash: 1271
Quote:
Originally Posted by myteammytown View Post
the term in an offer sheet scenario can have huge ramifications towards compensation.
It is the average salary that determines compensation.

I am the Liquor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2010, 12:07 PM
  #59
Ramrod
Happily outscoring
 
Ramrod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Schremp since 2000
Posts: 1,333
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am the Liquor View Post
It is the average salary that determines compensation.
It's the total salary divided by the first four or 5 years of the contract. It doesn't make a difference on shorter contracts, but makes a HUGE difference on longer ones.

This is why you see extremely long terms attached to offer sheets that garner four 1st round picks. Since that is the most compensation for an RFA offer sheet, teams will go long-term since it doesn't affect them as much.

For example, the Penner offer sheet. Had it been 7 years like the Vanek one, the Oilers would have had to give up four 1st round picks.

Ramrod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2010, 12:28 PM
  #60
I am the Liquor
finger sniffer
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 35,087
vCash: 1271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramrod View Post
It's the total salary divided by the first four or 5 years of the contract. It doesn't make a difference on shorter contracts, but makes a HUGE difference on longer ones.

This is why you see extremely long terms attached to offer sheets that garner four 1st round picks. Since that is the most compensation for an RFA offer sheet, teams will go long-term since it doesn't affect them as much.

For example, the Penner offer sheet. Had it been 7 years like the Vanek one, the Oilers would have had to give up four 1st round picks.
Do you have proof of this? And which is it four or five years?

I am the Liquor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2010, 01:09 PM
  #61
Ramrod
Happily outscoring
 
Ramrod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Schremp since 2000
Posts: 1,333
vCash: 500
I do have proof of it, it's in the CBA. If I wasn't on my blackberry right now, I would look up whether it's 4 or 5 years. You're on a computer, you'll likely be able to find it faster than me.

Ramrod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2010, 01:18 PM
  #62
I am the Liquor
finger sniffer
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 35,087
vCash: 1271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramrod View Post
I do have proof of it, it's in the CBA. If I wasn't on my blackberry right now, I would look up whether it's 4 or 5 years. You're on a computer, you'll likely be able to find it faster than me.
Maybe you can look it up later then. I have a bunch of stuff I have to do, each task more unsavoury than the next.

I am the Liquor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2010, 02:07 PM
  #63
Fourier
Registered User
 
Fourier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Waterloo Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am the Liquor View Post
Maybe you can look it up later then. I have a bunch of stuff I have to do, each task more unsavoury than the next.
It is 5 years. The info can be found in section 10.4 of the CBA.

Fourier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2010, 05:11 PM
  #64
I am the Liquor
finger sniffer
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 35,087
vCash: 1271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourier View Post
It is 5 years. The info can be found in section 10.4 of the CBA.
Thanks Furry.

I am the Liquor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2010, 06:01 PM
  #65
myteammytown
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 508
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am the Liquor View Post
Do you have proof of this? And which is it four or five years?
from the same site you referenced earlier with the NTC/NMC list: (or, nhlpa.com has the CBA there, section 10.3 and 10.4)

The amount is determined by taking the total compensation due in the Offer Sheet, and dividing by the number of years specified in the Offer Sheet, or five (5) - whichever is less.

Example: A team signs a RFA to an offer sheet which calls for salaries of $4 million in Years 1 and 2, and $5 million in Years 3 to 5. The average amount for compensation purposes is $4.6 million ($23 million divided by 5 years) - so the compensation required in 2008-09 would be a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round pick.

Example: A team signs a RFA to an offer sheet which calls for a salary of $3.5 million per year for 6 years. Even though the Averaged Salary on the offer sheet would be $3.5 million, for compensation purposes the average amount is $4.2 million ($21 million divided by the lesser of the number of years on the offer sheet, or 5) - so the compensation due in 2008-09 would be one 1st's, one 2nd, and one 3rd round pick.



so yes, term is huge when it comes to offer sheets.

myteammytown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2010, 06:12 PM
  #66
Ramrod
Happily outscoring
 
Ramrod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Schremp since 2000
Posts: 1,333
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourier View Post
It is 5 years. The info can be found in section 10.4 of the CBA.
Thanks, I was in class and couldn't check back until now. Good thing you posted this or liquor would have had his busy day of posting on HFBoards interrupted to check the index of the CBA and read the corresponding section

Ramrod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2010, 07:05 PM
  #67
I am the Liquor
finger sniffer
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 35,087
vCash: 1271
Quote:
Originally Posted by myteammytown View Post
from the same site you referenced earlier with the NTC/NMC list: (or, nhlpa.com has the CBA there, section 10.3 and 10.4)

The amount is determined by taking the total compensation due in the Offer Sheet, and dividing by the number of years specified in the Offer Sheet, or five (5) - whichever is less.

Example: A team signs a RFA to an offer sheet which calls for salaries of $4 million in Years 1 and 2, and $5 million in Years 3 to 5. The average amount for compensation purposes is $4.6 million ($23 million divided by 5 years) - so the compensation required in 2008-09 would be a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round pick.

Example: A team signs a RFA to an offer sheet which calls for a salary of $3.5 million per year for 6 years. Even though the Averaged Salary on the offer sheet would be $3.5 million, for compensation purposes the average amount is $4.2 million ($21 million divided by the lesser of the number of years on the offer sheet, or 5) - so the compensation due in 2008-09 would be one 1st's, one 2nd, and one 3rd round pick.



so yes, term is huge when it comes to offer sheets.
Thanks.

I am the Liquor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2010, 07:07 PM
  #68
I am the Liquor
finger sniffer
 
I am the Liquor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: Canada
Posts: 35,087
vCash: 1271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramrod View Post
Thanks, I was in class and couldn't check back until now. Good thing you posted this or liquor would have had his busy day of posting on HFBoards interrupted to check the index of the CBA and read the corresponding section
I was busy. Honest.

I am the Liquor 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 08:29 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.