HFBoards

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

Kari's next contract

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-12-2012, 08:58 AM
  #26
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 22,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by glovesave_35 View Post
Cap inflation is one thing but it doesn't mean you should start throwing money away. 5 years at $6mil/year is a very big commitment for a guy who still has durability issues.
If Dallas isn't willing to push into the high $5 or even exceed $6 million, it's doubtful Kari Lehtonen stays in Dallas. Someone will pay him as an UFA.

So if you argument is that Dallas should cap their offer and be prepared to walk, that's fine.

My argument would be that $6 million is not honestly that much money, and (with the exception of Benn) your top players are already locked up. Even needing to get Benn under contract, you are no where near the cap (most project it won't fall below $60 million after the new CBA). Plus, you are no where near being in the position of needing to let a key player (not even a core player) walk away because of cap or money issues.

I don't think many would argue that Kari Lehtonen has been pretty much the MVP of the team. Even last year, he's a big reason they are one game away from the playoffs. He had pretty much the same team in front of him that Turco had in 2009-10 and was miles ahead of him. Do you want to squabble over $1-$1.5 million?

It's doubtful Bachman will have proven enough at the end of next season that he's ready to be a starter. Bachman has been excellent as a backup, but don't forget that he wore down in a limited stint (2 or 3 weeks IIRC) as a starter and his game fell of significantly. I'm glad Dallas has what seems to be an extremely competent backup, but people shouldn't just assume he's ready or capable of carrying a team. In a 2 or 3 years, yeah he could be a potential answer.

Beskorowany and Campbell won't be ready either in 2013.

I just don't think anyone is presenting a decent argument about why you shouldn't pay market value on a relatively short deal (3 or 4 years). Bachman will still be young, and Campbell would only be 24 or 25 years old. Instead of forcing yourself to potentially have a significant fall off in quality goaltending in 2013-14, you've set yourself up to allow your goalies of the future to fully develop and be ready for increased responsibility. You likely won't have much of drop off in talent at the position in 2016-17 or 2017-18. Finally, you've maximized your assets because let's be honest, we either sign Lehtonen or he walks at this point. GM Joe isn't going to trade him at next year's deadline if he isn't signed. However, a few years down the line when Dallas has more than competent options to immediately step up and carry the load, Lehtonen should be available for additional assets to another team (like Grossman but probably better assets).

BigG44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2012, 09:09 AM
  #27
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 22,102
vCash: 500
Honestly, I went with the 4 year deal just because I didn't really think Kari or his agent would want another relative short deal.

In a perfect world (or at least my perfect world) it would be a 3 year deal for as low as you could get him to commit, but I'd be prepared to push $7 million.

Something in the $6.5-$6.75 million range.

Over the next 4 years, you still likely aren't going to be a cap team. The most important players on your teams don't expire during that time. 4 years instead of 5 is also probably the perfect amount of time to transition to hopefully Jack Campbell or Richard Bachman.

I'd pay a bit more to drop the deal an extra year. You aren't wasting money on a guy like Lehtonen, and like I said you'll likely get a decent haul of assets for him when you are ready to move on.

BigG44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2012, 12:25 PM
  #28
Cin
Eurosnob.
 
Cin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Country: Thailand
Posts: 7,906
vCash: 500
Kari is worth 6.25-6.75 no problem.

Cin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2012, 01:40 PM
  #29
piqued
Global Moderator
 
piqued's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Dallas
Country: United States
Posts: 31,919
vCash: 811
Assuming the cap climate remains at all similar to what we have now (I'm not convinced it will balloon upward like some of the recent reports have suggested), I would not spend more than 5 million per on Kari. And that's nothing against Kari. I wouldn't spend more than 5 million on any goalie in the league. If he wants more, promote Bachman. Where I differ is that I would be willing to go 5 or 6 years. If we have Kari under contract I'm not concerned about any of our prospects.

And I don't see how Eriksson's contract wasn't a home-town discount. We all were ecstatic with the deal when it was signed. It was pretty obvious that the Stars were getting a great deal. It may have been market-value at that particular instant in time, but had Loui chosen to wait just a little bit longer he easily could've gotten a bigger deal. So he took a discount in terms of when he chose to sign.

piqued is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2012, 03:08 PM
  #30
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 22,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by piqued View Post
And I don't see how Eriksson's contract wasn't a home-town discount. We all were ecstatic with the deal when it was signed. It was pretty obvious that the Stars were getting a great deal. It may have been market-value at that particular instant in time, but had Loui chosen to wait just a little bit longer he easily could've gotten a bigger deal. So he took a discount in terms of when he chose to sign.
It's either a discount or it's market value. I honestly can't see how you could call it both. He either takes less than comparable players .... which would be a discount .... or he takes the same which is market value. He took the same.

Every once in a while you'll have a contract that deviates from the norm or starts a new trend, but nearly every contract can be traced back to another group of deals. With the exception of Hiller, every contract I provided a link for is similar with only small changes in term and yearly value. It shouldn't be shocking to anyone that those contracts are all within $1.2 million of one another per year.

If you're putting faith in a player accepting a "home town discount" .... you're going to be disappointed. I'm not going to argue against capping Dallas' offer at $5 million because I see that as a relevant opinion to not pay big for goalies, but I just hope no one actually believes Dallas has a legitimate shot at that type of contract. He's already making $4.25 million. I'm not saying it's impossible, but is a bit irrational to hope for.

Mike Modano was the Dallas Stars and even he refused to take a home town discount on his last major contract coming out of the lockout. In fact he used Boston or Chicago (I always forget the exact team) to drive up his price. The Ticket at the time was even reporting it was close to a done deal for him leaving the Stars until all of a sudden a deal in Dallas was worked out. I don't buy for one second he was using those teams for anything but leverage and was never really going to leave.

I don't know if it's that fans want to pretend it's not a business, but those guys are going to make business decisions just like the teams do when they cut, trade or refuse to re-sign them, especially in today's NHL.

I think it's a bit hypocritical of fans to praise GMJN for a smart business and hockey decision to walk away from Modano and Turco 2 years ago, but then they turn around and expect a player to make a poor business decision and maximize their value. That's not an endorsement for players in the NHL to go money crazy like other sports, but they have the right (and an obligation to other players honestly) to expect fair contracts.

If you want to be upset about what is fair, you blame who is responsible and that's the GM/owners in the league that pay good, not great or special goalies, between $5.5 and $7 million a year.

BigG44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2012, 03:22 PM
  #31
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 22,102
vCash: 500
I just can't see how we could discuss $5 million being a fair, reasonable contract at this point so I'd honestly like to steer the discussion more towards what glovesave and piqued said because it really is the most important part of this discussion.

They are on the side that you don't pay Lehts a fair market contract and you roll with your prospects if Kari won't take a significant pay cut. I agree that is a smart business decision, but my concern would be it's not the best hockey decision.

For me, I'm pretty much sick of the business side being more important than the actual hockey. That's no to say though that this is exactly what's happening here. I just don't agree that Bachs or Campbell are going to be ready by 2013 for starter duties or even sharing the duties. I'd feel more comfortable seeing Lehts take a shorter term market value contract so the team can be as patient as possible with Bachs and Campbell.

Dallas' track record of patience with goalies has always proven to be much more successful IMO than just throwing them to the wolves at a young age. Turco wasn't a full time starter until he was 27. I don't think it's a coincidence that Kari is fully hitting his stride right now at 27 as well. Lundqivst was about 24 when he started to really shine as an elite goalie. Kipper was 29 before being a starter and elite goalie for Calgary.

Now, you also have your guys that do it much younger so it's not universal, but I guess I'd just prefer to be a bit more patient. I really think Bachs could benefit playing about 25 or 30 games under Kari for a while.

BigG44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2012, 03:34 PM
  #32
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 22,102
vCash: 500
As far how could a let's just say $6.5 million contract hurt the stars ......


Loui Eriksson is a core player, and he's locked up for 4 more years at $4.25 million.

Alex Goligoski another identified core player is locked up for 4 years at $4.6 million.

Trevor Daley another identified core player is locked up for 5 more years at $3.3 million.

Jamie Benn I honestly haven't thought too much about since I believe they will wait for the next CBA to be settled .... with the hope that the owners can get something in there to help ease the craziness of the 2nd contracts (see Doughty and Stamkos). That seems to be a big discussion going into the CBA that GMs aren't thrilled that the traditional 2nd contract has gone away. I'll throw out $4 or $5 million as Benn's most likely cap hit without putting too much thought into it.

This would put Dallas at about $24 million invested in their core 5 players. I do believe that the reports we'll see the cap fall to $60 million seem to be the most reasonable, and I think $36 million is more than enough to fill the roster. I doubt they'd even need to use all of it.

In the near future, they'll likely have at least 2 players on ELC in the Top 6 and another 2 on defense. One of those players will be making about $1.75 million, but the other 3 will likely be just under $1 million.

Being able to utilize ELC's will really help the Stars. That's 4 more players and only about an additional $5 million in cap space.

I just don't see signing Lehtonen to a fair market contract being any kind of issue with the cap over the next 4 to 5 seasons (3 or 4 year contract with 1 year left on his current deal).

BigG44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2012, 03:41 PM
  #33
MetalGodAOD
Moderator
Star Rangers
 
MetalGodAOD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New York City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,262
vCash: 500
I agree with Big, if it absolutely comes to it pay him a bit more. An extra $500k to $1mil isn't going to handicap the team. Losing its starter and throwing Campbell/Besko/Bachman as a starter before they're ready will, and could take years to fix.

MetalGodAOD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2012, 03:42 PM
  #34
LatvianTwist
Global Moderator
 
LatvianTwist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Houston
Country: Tibet
Posts: 18,544
vCash: 500
Saving 1.5 million dollars on Lehtonen (he should and probably will ask for around 6.25) is not worth ruining our prospect depth by throwing them into the NHL too early, and it's not worth giving up an elatedly talented goalie. We've got loads of cap space and money to spend.

I wouldn't give him over 7 million though, even if he has an absolutely spectacular season next year. Rinne's contract is the absolute max.

LatvianTwist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2012, 04:00 PM
  #35
Frozen Failure
Best Threadkiller
 
Frozen Failure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,795
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Frozen Failure Send a message via Yahoo to Frozen Failure
5.25 6.25 6.25 5.25

I think would be a fair deal. We shouldn't give him a lifetime contract, because the CBA will in all likelyhood nix those. He gets a raise next year, two solid years at market rate then comes back down as you would theoretically assume the human body slows down and his career winds down. Neither Kari nor the Stars can guarantee he keeps his physical talents like Kippy, but maybe we can find a way to sneak options into the next CBA

e: Goalies are something of a product of the system they play in. I do think Kari has enough talent to play in virtually any system, but his numbers ARE a product of Dallas keep shots exterior and lanes closed.

Frozen Failure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2012, 04:14 PM
  #36
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 22,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozen Failure View Post
5.25 6.25 6.25 5.25

I think would be a fair deal. We shouldn't give him a lifetime contract, because the CBA will in all likelyhood nix those. He gets a raise next year, two solid years at market rate then comes back down as you would theoretically assume the human body slows down and his career winds down. Neither Kari nor the Stars can guarantee he keeps his physical talents like Kippy, but maybe we can find a way to sneak options into the next CBA

e: Goalies are something of a product of the system they play in. I do think Kari has enough talent to play in virtually any system, but his numbers ARE a product of Dallas keep shots exterior and lanes closed.
I think that is more true of the Stars on their current streak. Last year the team in front of him was the same mess that Turco had. Earlier this year, they were not nearly as good as they are right now (which is still not perfect).

I think the statement better applies to a guy like Mike Smith in PHX, but no I do agree that Kari Lehtonen is not carrying the team 100% by himself any longer. However, Dallas is far from a systemically sound defensive team that improves a goalies stats and performance.

BigG44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2012, 04:21 PM
  #37
Frozen Failure
Best Threadkiller
 
Frozen Failure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,795
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Frozen Failure Send a message via Yahoo to Frozen Failure
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigG44 View Post
I think that is more true of the Stars on their current streak. Last year the team in front of him was the same mess that Turco had. Earlier this year, they were not nearly as good as they are right now (which is still not perfect).

I think the statement better applies to a guy like Mike Smith in PHX, but no I do agree that Kari Lehtonen is not carrying the team 100% by himself any longer. However, Dallas is far from a systemically sound defensive team that improves a goalies stats and performance.
This is true, which is why I'm not Jason and under the impression we chumpchange goalies like Kari who have ****tons of talent.

Frozen Failure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2012, 04:24 PM
  #38
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 22,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozen Failure View Post
This is true, which is why I'm not Jason and under the impression we chumpchange goalies like Kari who have ****tons of talent.
I hate when you post now. Your avatar just makes me hungry. Then I just get disappointed because there's no way I'm eating anything as nice as a Tomahawk steak.

BigG44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2012, 07:46 PM
  #39
________
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 4,649
vCash: 1000
Send a message via AIM to ________ Send a message via MSN to ________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozen Failure View Post
5.25 6.25 6.25 5.25

I think would be a fair deal. We shouldn't give him a lifetime contract, because the CBA will in all likelyhood nix those. He gets a raise next year, two solid years at market rate then comes back down as you would theoretically assume the human body slows down and his career winds down. Neither Kari nor the Stars can guarantee he keeps his physical talents like Kippy, but maybe we can find a way to sneak options into the next CBA

e: Goalies are something of a product of the system they play in. I do think Kari has enough talent to play in virtually any system, but his numbers ARE a product of Dallas keep shots exterior and lanes closed.
Goalies last longer then other positions, assuming they play a style which relies on positioning. I honestly, wouldn't be worried about that. Even though Lehtonen has avoided the serious injuries in Dallas, so far he has still missed some time due to a injury in both of his seasons. Hopefully it's not more then a $6 million cap hit for Lehtonen's extension.

Yes, he can play in basically any system, but he's not a product of a system though. It's not like the Stars have this strong defense or defensive system.

________ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 12:55 AM
  #40
glovesave_35
Name
 
glovesave_35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Korea
Country: United States
Posts: 16,016
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigG44 View Post
If Dallas isn't willing to push into the high $5 or even exceed $6 million, it's doubtful Kari Lehtonen stays in Dallas. Someone will pay him as an UFA.

So if you argument is that Dallas should cap their offer and be prepared to walk, that's fine.

My argument would be that $6 million is not honestly that much money, and (with the exception of Benn) your top players are already locked up. Even needing to get Benn under contract, you are no where near the cap (most project it won't fall below $60 million after the new CBA). Plus, you are no where near being in the position of needing to let a key player (not even a core player) walk away because of cap or money issues.

I don't think many would argue that Kari Lehtonen has been pretty much the MVP of the team. Even last year, he's a big reason they are one game away from the playoffs. He had pretty much the same team in front of him that Turco had in 2009-10 and was miles ahead of him. Do you want to squabble over $1-$1.5 million?

It's doubtful Bachman will have proven enough at the end of next season that he's ready to be a starter. Bachman has been excellent as a backup, but don't forget that he wore down in a limited stint (2 or 3 weeks IIRC) as a starter and his game fell of significantly. I'm glad Dallas has what seems to be an extremely competent backup, but people shouldn't just assume he's ready or capable of carrying a team. In a 2 or 3 years, yeah he could be a potential answer.

Beskorowany and Campbell won't be ready either in 2013.

I just don't think anyone is presenting a decent argument about why you shouldn't pay market value on a relatively short deal (3 or 4 years). Bachman will still be young, and Campbell would only be 24 or 25 years old. Instead of forcing yourself to potentially have a significant fall off in quality goaltending in 2013-14, you've set yourself up to allow your goalies of the future to fully develop and be ready for increased responsibility. You likely won't have much of drop off in talent at the position in 2016-17 or 2017-18. Finally, you've maximized your assets because let's be honest, we either sign Lehtonen or he walks at this point. GM Joe isn't going to trade him at next year's deadline if he isn't signed. However, a few years down the line when Dallas has more than competent options to immediately step up and carry the load, Lehtonen should be available for additional assets to another team (like Grossman but probably better assets).
Paying a guy "market value" in terms of dollars per annum is one thing. Handing Lehtonen a 5-6 year deal at $6 mil/yr when you are less than three years removed from drafting a goaltender 11th overall* seems unrealistic to me. So what, did they draft Campbell that high to be this team's backup for 4 years and then take over? I don't buy it. Honestly, I get that Lehtonen is a huge piece of the puzzle. I'm just not ok with giving him a 5+ year contract given his durability issues, postseason question marks, and the Campbell selection.

Personally, I would be happier with an inflated salary three year deal, something in the 6.75 per year for three years range. If a team out there is willing to commit to him for 5 years at 6+ then oh well.

*Note that I'm not saying that Campbell has earned anything in the bigs yet nor should he be given anything. But spending a draft pick like that on a goaltender and then blocking his chance for 5-6 years doesn't make much sense.

glovesave_35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 01:02 AM
  #41
hairylikebear
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\|\\
 
hairylikebear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Houston
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 2,043
vCash: 500
If Campbell becomes better than Kari he'll be the starter. If not, they have Kari. I don't see what the problem is.

hairylikebear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 02:50 AM
  #42
glovesave_35
Name
 
glovesave_35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Korea
Country: United States
Posts: 16,016
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hairylikebear View Post
If Campbell becomes better than Kari he'll be the starter. If not, they have Kari. I don't see what the problem is.
The problem is in having a $6 million backup. I know this may come as a shock but those aren't the most valuable trade pieces.

I didn't use the word problem. I just think you have to take these things into consideration when prophesying how the Stars will approach any future contract talks. If Kari looks like a badass in the playoffs this year then things may change. As things currently stand he's a better than average goalie who will be injured at some point in the season and miss 8-20 games.

I can't possibly be the only one who isn't entirely convinced that he will be healthy and with the team through thick and thin, can I?

glovesave_35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 04:49 AM
  #43
hairylikebear
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\|\\
 
hairylikebear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Houston
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 2,043
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by glovesave_35 View Post
The problem is in having a $6 million backup. I know this may come as a shock but those aren't the most valuable trade pieces.
That's not a problem, that's a risk. Sometimes you have to take them. Besides, the whole idea of offering term is to reduce the cap hit. He won't be making $6M if he's signed over 4 years.

I wouldn't sign him long term though. The team has plenty of cap room and fairly little talent to spend it on. There's no point in getting bogged down with risky contracts.

hairylikebear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 05:07 AM
  #44
glovesave_35
Name
 
glovesave_35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Korea
Country: United States
Posts: 16,016
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hairylikebear View Post
That's not a problem, that's a risk.
That's why I italicized the word you first used.


Quote:
Originally Posted by hairylikebear View Post
I wouldn't sign him long term though. The team has plenty of cap room and fairly little talent to spend it on. There's no point in getting bogged down with risky contracts.
I agree.

glovesave_35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 10:16 AM
  #45
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 22,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by glovesave_35 View Post
Paying a guy "market value" in terms of dollars per annum is one thing. Handing Lehtonen a 5-6 year deal at $6 mil/yr when you are less than three years removed from drafting a goaltender 11th overall* seems unrealistic to me. So what, did they draft Campbell that high to be this team's backup for 4 years and then take over? I don't buy it. Honestly, I get that Lehtonen is a huge piece of the puzzle. I'm just not ok with giving him a 5+ year contract given his durability issues, postseason question marks, and the Campbell selection.
I never said 5 or 6 years. I've always said 3 or 4 years. I mentioned that I considered 6 years when I started thinking about realistic offers, but I decided 3 or 4 years made the most sense for Dallas and Kari. A 6 year deal would essentially make this is final big contract unless the 35+ rule is removed from the CBA, and I haven't seen a single mention that teams or players were upset with that rule.

So we agree .....

Quote:
Personally, I would be happier with an inflated salary three year deal, something in the 6.75 per year for three years range. If a team out there is willing to commit to him for 5 years at 6+ then oh well.
Which I also said would be the ideal situation so we agree again.

Quote:
*Note that I'm not saying that Campbell has earned anything in the bigs yet nor should he be given anything. But spending a draft pick like that on a goaltender and then blocking his chance for 5-6 years doesn't make much sense.
I would argue making current roster decisions on potential of a guy who hasn't even turned pro yet would be a much bigger mistake than potentially blocking him from the NHL.

Campbell is 20 years old ... I already made this point but I'll make it again. The traditional long path of a goalie to the NHL, while not universal, proves to be more effective IMO. A 3 year contract to Kari puts Campbell at 24 when Lehts deal is over. I've already pointed out that some of the better goalies in the league (specifically ones I used as comparable to Kari) were 27 and older when they became the starter (Lundqvist was 24).

I just can't find any way a 3 or 4 year contract, with the slightly inflated yearly hit that you and I both agree on, would hurt Bachman or Lehtonen in anyway.

BigG44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2012, 08:33 PM
  #46
glovesave_35
Name
 
glovesave_35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Korea
Country: United States
Posts: 16,016
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigG44 View Post
I would argue making current roster decisions on potential of a guy who hasn't even turned pro yet would be a much bigger mistake than potentially blocking him from the NHL.
I didn't say that's what I would do. I do think the current regime may have that in mind when approaching the situation though. I'm not going to argue with your long path to the NHL for goalies thing because I agree. For all of these reasons I think it is beyond stupid to draft a goalie in the first round (let alone 11th!). However, part of what you want out of drafting a goalie that high is for him to show up sooner than someone drafted in say, rounds 4-7, and prove a GM right or wrong.

I've been against the pick from the moment it was made but that doesn't mean I can't see how it might effect Dallas Stars roster moves. And I think it will.

glovesave_35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2012, 05:32 PM
  #47
Bench
Moderator
Coffee. Pie. Owls.
 
Bench's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Twin Peaks
Posts: 7,659
vCash: 500
I love Lehtonen, but I wouldn't sign him to a day over 3 years.

Bench is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2012, 06:15 PM
  #48
EkiE
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Korso
Country:
Posts: 838
vCash: 500
2 years 4-5m per(8-10m total) or let him walk. Injury prone (also talented) goaltender that has bad work ethics is not worth long commitment. You have Bachman/Cambell who will be better in 2 years.

EkiE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2012, 06:16 PM
  #49
Bennrocks
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,078
vCash: 500
Since when does he have a bad work ethic?

Bennrocks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2012, 06:24 PM
  #50
EkiE
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Korso
Country:
Posts: 838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bennrocks View Post
Since when does he have a bad work ethic?
since his whole career until he became a Star. Overweight athletes tend to slack with their training program.

EkiE 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 09:20 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.