No problem, I may have misunderstood your post, and I agree with you I don't like the fact that he may be gone either.
:mad:
I actually hope he is gone. Let me quantilfy that statement.
The reality is we have to many forwards and a greeat many of them have little or no trade value, and we have to many smallish forwards in our top 6. Comrie actually has a pretty decent trade value and is one of the small forwards, so we can a) trade one of our other forwards to make room for him, B) sit an asset of his value for a protracted amount of time. C) or trade MC for an asset that fills a need we have in other positions like Goal or Defence.
I am a big fan of C for no other reason than i am sick of seeing Edm forwards getting murdered in teh coners because they are just to small. We have York and Comrie and they play a similar style of game, except that York plays a much better rounded game. I understand that Comrie is a better offensive player, but his defense leaves much to be desired. He isn't totally bad, but York is much better. Given the choice between These 2 player I take York. I think the D-man or goalie coming back for Comrie would make out line up stronger than keeping comrie would.
great post chayos. I agree completely with you. It is an unusual set of circumstances that would have me hoping to trade a young excellent player like comrie but I beleive that the oilers will be a better team after he is traded.
We are not winning the cup this year so we may as well position ourselves to create a top 5 team post 2004.
I don't know how good his trade value is though...I mean, any team that trades for him will have the headache of trying to sign him...Also, most other teams have heard the same rumblings as us fans have heard...I do agree that his value is higher than other Oiler forwards but alot higher, I don't think so...I really think this will be a long process...As I see it, 2 things will happen ( I know, these are pretty obvious ):
1) Oilers will struggle to score goals, Lowe will cave and get Comrie back in the lineup...
or
2) Lowe will swindle another team that has trouble scoring and get whatever he's looking for: Top prospect, another d-man...
I hope #2 happens...
For some reason, I don't think Comrie will cave...
Ya know, I have mulled this situation over and over in my mind and it always comes back to this. We cannot afford to lose the 25 + goals that Comrie gives this team. That said, it doesn't mean that we can't afford to lose the guy. It means we need to get a good, bigger, strong center that can score. But, who could you get, that would give you all that, and fall in line at a cheap price? I can't think of anyone.... All those posters that feel we need another d-prospect aren't wrong on that feeling, but see above on the 25+ goals we would be losing on. Remember a couple of seasons ago when we set a club record for the least goals against. Second in the league in G.A. behind Colorado. I seem to recall we missed the playoffs that year. LMHF#1 is right, no Comrie, no playoffs. Its as simple as that. If you trade the guy, your not going to get anyone better, cheaper. For his age, Comrie is a bit of a prodigy. Nobody that is at Comrie's age (besides Heatley, or Kovulchuck, and good luck getting either one fo them) and is available, can match his stats. So your looking at older players, that become UFA's faster, or arbitration. Lowe realizes this, I just in my gut feel that he needs to bring Comrie's ego down a peg or two, by letting him sit. Lowe isn't going to deal that guy, but he is going to let him stew for a while. Its all part of the negotiations. Its all going to depend on how the Oilers start as to how quickly Comrie comes back. Both camps are dug in and awaiting that outcome.
If his job is to keep one of our best players off the ice, then he's doin great.
part of his job is to not overpay a guy just to get him in the lineup at any cost just because of the pressure coming from impatient fans who don't understand the complexities of what's going on.
Quote:
Because no one who put up 50 points in an injury plagued season, and 60 points the year before, and is 22 years old, will sign that deal.
Alex Tanguay (a rough comparable) did this summer, and he's a year older.
Joe Thornton did after his huge deal, and so did Lecavalier.
Quote:
If Lowe's offering 1.4 mil, there'd better be some bonus clauses on top.
I'm sure there would be, but they wouldn't be like the bonus clauses he got before. MAYBE they'd take him up to 2 mil if he really were to perform well.
Quote:
Because that's how the NHL works, like it or not. Good player, you pay the guy.
there is a strong correlation between performance and cost, but it's not strict before arbitration. Young guys have no leverage before aritration, but they need to get the years in to get to arbitration to start having the leverage to cash in, which is why you see young guys sign for less (Tanguay, Thornton, Lecavalier) than they might have truly deserved had they had arbitration rights.
That's why York's deal was structured 1.2 first year, 2.0 2nd year, 2.4 3rd year. He had no arb rights the first year. He would have been qualified at about 700K. so to get that big raise to 1.2 in his 4th year (no arb) he gave in on term, 2.0 and 2.4, in what would have been his arbitration eligible years. In Comrie's case, he isn't arb eligible until 2005, complicated by the new CBA. I could see him being offered a deal much like York's (even though he has more time until arbitration than York did), and would think that if he won't sign it he'll be traded or sit all year.
Personally I think what Lowe is looking for here is a 3 year 6 mil deal, roundabouts. If he wants to keep him here at all. But on a one year deal Comrie would have to give in financially because there isn't much incentive for them to give him a one year deal and watch him put up great numbers. They would pay more to get him tied up long term, I'm pretty sure, though as spaz notes that's speculation.
Everyone is writing lengthly responses about what Comrie is asking for if he is signing for one year, but who is to say the holdout doesn't revolve around a multi-year deal?
Everyone is writing lengthly responses about what Comrie is asking for if he is signing for one year, but who is to say the holdout doesn't revolve around a multi-year deal?
His agent said that there were non-monentary issues, so you could be right.
I thought it could be that or performance bonuses which in an agents mind might be non-monentary because it has to do with performance.
Remember a couple of seasons ago when we set a club record for the least goals against. Second in the league in G.A. behind Colorado. I seem to recall we missed the playoffs that year. LMHF#1 is right, no Comrie, no playoffs.
Yeah, but you have to admit that 01/02 year was somewhat of an aberration. Missing the playoffs that year had a lot more to do with a Canucks team that got ridiculously hot in the 2nd half and basically took our place than us scoring fewer goals. Actually, you could argue that team was statistically superior to last year's team that made the playoffs rather comfortably (higher winning %, better GF/GA differential)...and with Comrie having his best year to boot. You can say 'no Comrie, no playoffs' and it may be true, but you also have to admit that having a healthy, producing Comrie is no guarantee of playoffs either. He's not the be all and end all of this team, there's others (Smyth, Salo and even Smith) that are just as important if not more so, especially in places that don't show up on a scoring summary.
IMO, this team was hurt more offensively when Ryan Smyth was out of the lineup than when Comrie was. Admittedly the superior season that Marchant had helped during Comrie's absence, but who's to say Horcoff and especially Reasoner couldn't do the same? I can't recall anyone predicting Marchant becoming a 20 goal, 60 point center once he got the first line role...you never know until it happens.
Long story short, I'd rather have Comrie on my team than off it as long as he's healthy with a good attitude, but I don't think we're doomed to failure without him. Weight was a much more key facet of our offense and leadership when he left, and we survived losing him.
Yeah, but you have to admit that 01/02 year was somewhat of an aberration. Missing the playoffs that year had a lot more to do with a Canucks team that got ridiculously hot in the 2nd half and basically took our place than us scoring fewer goals. Actually, you could argue that team was statistically superior to last year's team that made the playoffs rather comfortably (higher winning %, better GF/GA differential)...and with Comrie having his best year to boot. You can say 'no Comrie, no playoffs' and it may be true, but you also have to admit that having a healthy, producing Comrie is no guarantee of playoffs either. He's not the be all and end all of this team, there's others (Smyth, Salo and even Smith) that are just as important if not more so, especially in places that don't show up on a scoring summary.
IMO, this team was hurt more offensively when Ryan Smyth was out of the lineup than when Comrie was. Admittedly the superior season that Marchant had helped during Comrie's absence, but who's to say Horcoff and especially Reasoner couldn't do the same? I can't recall anyone predicting Marchant becoming a 20 goal, 60 point center once he got the first line role...you never know until it happens.
Long story short, I'd rather have Comrie on my team than off it as long as he's healthy with a good attitude, but I don't think we're doomed to failure without him. Weight was a much more key facet of our offense and leadership when he left, and we survived losing him.
Very good post...I agree..This "no Comrie, no playoffs" idea is quite a stretch...The fact is, for the first time in a long time, the Oilers may have players who could pick up the slack...From all accounts, Hemsky is going to have a great year...Assuming he doesn't turn inot Cleary, Isbister, with his play in the preseason will be very good...Horcoff and Resonner will build on last year...Maybe D-vo on the excellent ice of uh, Northlands Colosium will regain is form..That's the difference from when Doug Weight didn't have a contract...Where Weight went, so did the Oilers...Not the same for Comrie...
"why in the world would Lowe want to pay Comrie more than he has to? What is Lowe's upside in giving Comrie a one year deal at 1.8 mil only to watch him put up 70 points? If Lowe's gives him a one year deal at all it will likely be at a low number, and in fact, it wouldn't surprise me if Lowe simply told Winter that he's not interested in a one year deal at any price (as is Lowe's right under the CBA after Comrie refused his qualifying offer of approx 1.1 mil)"
Because that's how the NHL works, like it or not. Good player, you pay the guy. It's just so unrealistic, some of the expectations of what will work and what won't, you really think the guy would play for less than Georges Laraque??? Look at what they're doing with Havlat in Ottawa, same thing, he's not gonna take that kinda deal either.
Just an aside. You say that's the way the NHL works and its Comrie's right to turn down any offer if he feels he can get more. You are correct only you are ignoring the fact that what Lowe is doing is also the way the NHL works. Lowe owes it to the fans to ice the best team on budget and he's attempting to do that.
I suspect Lowe wants a two or three year deal. There is no way he's going to give a one year closer to two million to allow Comrie arbitration under the old CBA next summer. That would be irresponsible of our GM.
Just an aside. You say that's the way the NHL works and its Comrie's right to turn down any offer if he feels he can get more. You are correct only you are ignoring the fact that what Lowe is doing is also the way the NHL works. Lowe owes it to the fans to ice the best team on budget and he's attempting to do that.
I suspect Lowe wants a two or three year deal. There is no way he's going to give a one year closer to two million to allow Comrie arbitration under the old CBA next summer. That would be irresponsible of our GM.
I just happen to believe that Lowe would be much better to bend a bit and have him on the team, than trade him for much less that he's worth, or have him sit. It's all a matter of debate obviously, but I think the case is fairly evident that we'd be better with.
Just an addition, and not directed at you in any way J.Money, for everyone who is just giving up on this season already, seriously, what's up with that? A team will never win if it has that attitude, and we as fans should be supplying much of it.
I just happen to believe that Lowe would be much better to bend a bit and have him on the team, than trade him for much less that he's worth, or have him sit. It's all a matter of debate obviously, but I think the case is fairly evident that we'd be better with.
Just an addition, and not directed at you in any way J.Money, for everyone who is just giving up on this season already, seriously, what's up with that? A team will never win if it has that attitude, and we as fans should be supplying much of it.
You can talk. Isn't it you who said No Comrie, No Playoffs. Look yourself in the mirror first.
__________________ "He just ate up Robyn Regehr for dinner, a spectacular play by Hemsky, and Robyn Regehr has got doo doo all over his face" - Rod Phillips call on Hemsky's goal vs the Flames
You can talk. Isn't it you who said No Comrie, No Playoffs. Look yourself in the mirror first.
Those two statements have nothing to do with one another. Nowhere did I say there's no chance, but we have people saying "We will not win the cup" or "It's not worth succeeding this year because it accomplishes nothing". This is completely different from what I said. I said that it's highly likely the team might not progress if Comrie is not retained, and that that should be avoided because this is not the time for regression. By the way, that is not a direct quote, but nice try. Belcriss took what I said a little further.
Just an addition, and not directed at you in any way J.Money, for everyone who is just giving up on this season already, seriously, what's up with that? A team will never win if it has that attitude, and we as fans should be supplying much of it.
I haven't given up but I got to thinking (a rarity I'm sure). The team that had Comrie and Marchant lost in the 1st playoff round last year. These two players have been replaced by Torres, Rita and other unproven quantities. Given that the GM didn't make any significant acquisitions I wonder who is going to step up and replace the Comrie/Marchant point production, and where were they last year in the playoffs when we needed them!
"Given that the GM didn't make any significant acquisitions I wonder who is going to step up and replace the Comrie/Marchant point production, and where were they last year in the playoffs when we needed them!"
To counter with a question, where were Marchant and Comrie in the playoffs when we needed them? Lets face it, a whole lot of Oilers couldn't make the difference when it really counted.
I think a lot of the optimism on this board comes from the youth and potential on this team. Last year we saw some promise from Pisani, Hemsky, and Chimera. We also saw Horcoff make some late season strides, and Reasoner battle his way back from difficult situations.
Yes it is true that a lot of the Oilers are not proven, and I agree that this is a much better team with #89 in the lineup. However, what are the chances that Isbister, Hemsky, Rita, Pisani, Horcoff, and Reasoner ALL fail to progress? Just as I don't expect every single one to have a big year, I think its a pretty safe bet that one or two of those guys actually will make significant strides.
The bottom line is that there is reason to believe this team can be successful without Mike Comrie. I just prefer to see them be even more successful with him.
I suspect Lowe wants a two or three year deal. There is no way he's going to give a one year closer to two million to allow Comrie arbitration under the old CBA next summer. That would be irresponsible of our GM.
To complicate this further, Comrie wouldn't be eligible for arbitration under the current CBA until 2005, since he signed in December 2000. That leaves me completely lost as to what kind of term either side might be looking for.
):
