He's paying a player who has been less productive than Jiri Tlusty and Chad LaRose this season $4.75M/yr for the next four years. Sounds like a gamble to me.
But Ruutu is a 1st line forward who brings many intangibles. And if you believe all the Ruutu fans, it would cost at least $5 million to replace him. ( I don't believe that for a second, I can read and do math)
Ruutu and Gleason were both signings that more people will be *****ing about in months and years to come.
But Ruutu is a 1st line forward who brings many intangibles. And if you believe all the Ruutu fans, it would cost at least $5 million to replace him. ( I don't believe that for a second, I can read and do math)
Ruutu and Gleason were both signings that more people will be *****ing about in months and years to come.
Maybe just me, but I'd rather the devil I know vs. the one I don't. I'm not saying Ruutu and Gleason are or will ever be MVPs, but at least they are both solid, and both know the system. and for the record, who would we hypothetically replace them with if we let them walk? Olli Jokinen (Calgary might not resign him now apparently) and Cory Sarich? I'll take my chances with Timmah and Tuomo thnx.
Honestly, the guy we've lost to free agency that I've missed the most is Seidenberg. He's just as good as Gleason or Allen defensively, and doesn't suck ass when he has the puck on his stick.
Maybe just me, but I'd rather the devil I know vs. the one I don't. I'm not saying Ruutu and Gleason are or will ever be MVPs, but at least they are both solid, and both know the system. and for the record, who would we hypothetically replace them with if we let them walk? Olli Jokinen (Calgary might not resign him now apparently) and Cory Sarich? I'll take my chances with Timmah and Tuomo thnx.
How about we let them walk, try to draft and develop some players to fill their shoes and in the meantime use that money throughout the roster.
Why does everything have to be through free agency with this team? How much money will Jeff Skinner be making a year from now? We'll have another $4M+ contract on our hands, to go with who ever we sign in the offseason.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how this gameplan is sustainable or a small market team....or any team, for that matter. We keep giving huge raises to players despite them not getting any better, and we rarely have anyone to fill the shoes of the ELC/RFA player who are now making big UFA dollars on this team to do the same thing they did before when they cost half us much.
Jeff Skinner will go from making less than $1M to at least three or four times that. Unless there's another Jeff Skinner in the pipeline who can replicate that production on an ELC, the team just got worse even though they re-signed Skinner....because the available dollars to spend elsewhere keep shrinking.
Last edited by Amaxing Joni Jokel: 04-02-2012 at 03:18 AM.
Rutherford probably hasn't even considered that Skinner will be getting a raise in the future. Professional Sports GM's are notoriously short sighted like that.
The Ruutu signing is a combination of a weak free agency class and the increasing cap. Who should we replace him with at $4.75M? He would have gotten that much, if not more on the open market.
For the final time, this argument simply does not hold water. Just because he would get more in free agency doesn't make it a good signing. It's amazing to me that the same people who make this argument, take the exact opposite position whenever we lose somebody (like Cole or Whitney) to a big contract. How come it's OK to sign Ruutu to a four-year, $19 million extension because we couldn't replace him for that money, but it's OK to let Cole go over a four-year, $18 million deal because it's too rich a deal? We couldn't (and didn't) replace Cole with the money we didn't use to sign him, but that's OK?
The bottom line is this: Cole > Ruutu. Not sure what JR was looking at when he decided the opposite. Sorry, but the Ruutu deal remains a bad contract, not because of the money or length of contract, but because it's Tuomo Ruutu, who's simply not that great a hockey player.
For the final time, this argument simply does not hold water. Just because he would get more in free agency doesn't make it a good signing. It's amazing to me that the same people who make this argument, take the exact opposite position whenever we lose somebody (like Cole or Whitney) to a big contract. How come it's OK to sign Ruutu to a four-year, $19 million extension because we couldn't replace him for that money, but it's OK to let Cole go over a four-year, $18 million deal because it's too rich a deal? We couldn't (and didn't) replace Cole with the money we didn't use to sign him, but that's OK?
The bottom line is this: Cole > Ruutu. Not sure what JR was looking at when he decided the opposite. Sorry, but the Ruutu deal remains a bad contract, not because of the money or length of contract, but because it's Tuomo Ruutu, who's simply not that great a hockey player.
I look at it a different way. The contract isn't great, but what's available outside of Parise as far as forwards go isn't great either. So you either overpay for Ruutu the guy you know what you're getting or you sign a Poni and/or Stewart.
With that I'd rather have Ruutu, then try and pay a free agent the same if not more for the less or same production. Once you hit July 1st, the salary is going to rise, so although Ruutu's contract isn't great, he still would have gotten more come July 1st. Just like we would have paid his so called replacement more than they are worth.
For the final time, this argument simply does not hold water. Just because he would get more in free agency doesn't make it a good signing. It's amazing to me that the same people who make this argument, take the exact opposite position whenever we lose somebody (like Cole or Whitney) to a big contract. How come it's OK to sign Ruutu to a four-year, $19 million extension because we couldn't replace him for that money, but it's OK to let Cole go over a four-year, $18 million deal because it's too rich a deal? We couldn't (and didn't) replace Cole with the money we didn't use to sign him, but that's OK?
The bottom line is this: Cole > Ruutu. Not sure what JR was looking at when he decided the opposite. Sorry, but the Ruutu deal remains a bad contract, not because of the money or length of contract, but because it's Tuomo Ruutu, who's simply not that great a hockey player.
Interesting absolute coming off 2010-11 when Cole finally hit 50+ points again (52.) Ruutu in the same season also played all 82 games and had 57 points, double Cole's PP points on the same Carolina team, and 84 more hits. I know there are concerns that Carolina's official scorers are generous in hits, but that was from the same scorers for a season.
Add in Ruutu's flexibility in positions while Cole is a dedicated RW, both having injury history, and Ruutu being 4.5 years younger than Cole, and I can understand the logic in letting Cole walk after 2010-11.
Again, we'll see what the total production over the life of the deal is and whether it would have been a good deal for Carolina to make at the time. I'm not surprised Cole made the deal look good in 11-12; it's 13-14 and 14-15 that concern me.
How about we let them walk, try to draft and develop some players to fill their shoes and in the meantime use that money throughout the roster.
Why does everything have to be through free agency with this team? How much money will Jeff Skinner be making a year from now? We'll have another $4M+ contract on our hands, to go with who ever we sign in the offseason.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how this gameplan is sustainable or a small market team....or any team, for that matter. We keep giving huge raises to players despite them not getting any better, and we rarely have anyone to fill the shoes of the ELC/RFA player who are now making big UFA dollars on this team to do the same thing they did before when they cost half us much.
Jeff Skinner will go from making less than $1M to at least three or four times that. Unless there's another Jeff Skinner in the pipeline who can replicate that production on an ELC, the team just got worse even though they re-signed Skinner....because the available dollars to spend elsewhere keep shrinking.
The cap hit he's (Ruutu) coming off of is 3.8, his cap hit now is 4.75m so he took a raise of less than 1m. That's pretty reasonable if you ask me, considering he easily would've gotten at least 5m and prolly upwards of 6m had he walked. I'm all for drafting and developing, but you gotta have a couple guys in their prime going out to, can't all be under 21, or your the Oilers.
Also, when this contract is up, he'll still be one year younger than Cole is now. All in all he's a solid guy. I'd rather have him, than go out and find another Eh Stew just cause we can get him for 2-2.5m
JR wasn't going to pay a guy whose game is based entirely on speed that kind of money at 36 and 37. That's what he was thinking, everyone knows that's what he was thinking, so why are we still arguing about it.
He signed Ruutu and Gleason because he didn't want to make the softest team in the league even softer. It doesn't mean it's going to work out of course.
I look at it a different way. The contract isn't great, but what's available outside of Parise as far as forwards go isn't great either. So you either overpay for Ruutu the guy you know what you're getting or you sign a Poni and/or Stewart.
Or you do nothing and try to build a competitive team over time because paying almost everyone market value is a bad idea.
This team has basically been a budget version of the Calgary Flames for the last few years and Jim Rutherford is doing everything he can do to ensure that it will remain one for the foreseeable future.
Quote:
With that I'd rather have Ruutu, then try and pay a free agent the same if not more for the less or same production
So the only way to get 40 points is to pay a free agent $4.75M a year? The 'Canes are getting better production from Tlusty for league minimum and too much worse from friggin LaRose for $1.7M.
I guess now would also be a relevant time to mention that Alexei Ponikarovsky has two fewer points than Ruutu. In more games, but also with significantly worse linemates and less powerplay time.
The guy is just not that good. Why do we bring up getting "another Poni" as if such a thing is such a significantly worse option than Ruutu. And even if I stop exaggerating for a moment, can't we at least acknowledge that another Poni at one year $1.5M gives this team more flexibility to sign other players in the future than $4.75M for four years for Ruutu?
Once again, the concept that another team would pay just as much for Ruutu doesn't mean we should. Most other teams don't have a low budget as ours, and if they do, they probably don't have $30M+ already committed to a core of a few very expensive players.
I'm just wondering where in the world the money is going to come from to address anything in the future with this team. I'm actually beginning to think that signing Parise is a bad idea, because another Staal contract on the books doesn't do wonders for the rest of the team. What happens when Skinner is up for a new contract? Faulk in two years? How many players on this team will be making $4M two years from now? 8, 9? Where is the money going to come from to put above-AHL-level talent on the ice for the rest of the team?
So, you might not want to go after "another Poni" instead of signing Ruutu, but in the end, you are going to go after another Poni by signing Ruutu, because somebody is going to be let go in favor another Poni in the future to fill a roster spot because this team has no money to sign anyone better because they have just wasted $4.75M on Tuomo Ruutu.
JR wasn't going to pay a guy whose game is based entirely on speed that kind of money at 36 and 37.
If and when Cole ever slows down to Ruutu-speed, he'll still be able to finish, hit, and lead >>>>> the $19 million no-show Finn, who was the marshmallow puff-boy for the first half season helping to dig that hole.
Cole's a game-changer, Ruutu isn't. Cole doesn't coast, Ruutu does. Being younger doesn't make up for that. When Staal was doing whatever he was doing the first 40 games and leaving a vacumn of leadership, instead of stepping-up to fill the void like an older, highly-paid veteran should, Ruutu folded like a cheap tent and if anything became more invisible.
And I don't think that Skinner's regression since last season on maturity issues that have hurt/penalized the team aren't at least in part due to the lack of leadership in general, and in particular the lack of being under Cole's wing.
I get it that Cole's gone, but using Cole's contract while considering what value a player brings to the team as a barometer to take a look at Ruutu's extension, you gotta wonder why the cops haven't already raided JR's meth lab.
If and when Cole ever slows down to Ruutu-speed, he'll still be able to finish, hit, and lead >>>>> the $19 million no-show Finn, who was the marshmallow puff-boy for the first half season helping to dig that hole.
Cole's a game-changer, Ruutu isn't. Cole doesn't coast, Ruutu does. Being younger doesn't make up for that. When Staal was doing whatever he was doing the first half of the season leaving a vacumn of leadership, instead of stepping-up to fill the void like an older, highly-paid veteran should, Ruutu folded like a cheap tent and if anything became more invisible.
And I don't think that Skinner's regression since last season on maturity issues that have hurt/penalized the team aren't at least in part due to the lack of leadership in general, and in particular the lack of being under Cole's wing.
I get it that Cole's gone, but using Cole's contract while considering what value a player brings to the team as a barometer to take a look at Ruutu's extension, and you gotta wonder why the cops haven't already raided JR's meth lab.
I wonder how much this board would pay for Cole if it were on a short-term deal (and thus make the "37 year old" argument irrelevant). Ruutu is apparently worth $4.75m, so Cole should be worth at least $6-7M given that he's faster, better defensively, kills penalties, and actually shows up when the game is on the line, unlike Tuomo "down by four goals, time to pad my stats" Ruutu.
And this is coming from someone who didn't want to sign Cole at that contract and still wouldn't do it if given the chance. Ruutu's contract is just that much worse.
Last edited by Amaxing Joni Jokel: 04-02-2012 at 01:16 PM.
I feel somewhat vindicated since I was in favor of keeping Whitney. I remember vividly some on the board saying it didn't matter if we let him go, he was going to decline, he was not an important part of the team, he wasn't a "real" Hurricane.
Then there's Cole, who I kept saying would have a big year if we kept him (remember he scored what, 26 goals for us the last year we had him?) but I was shouted down, crazy Chuck, he's a Cole fanboy, Cole is not going to play well, he'll get injured, he's a "piece of garbage".
BUT I have to say, I'm starting to agree with those who think JR has made an awful lot of mistakes lately. Or is it PK, forcing his hand? Or some combination of both?
This offseason is a chance to really redeem some of these bad moves, and maybe get set for a real run in 2013. I'm still optimistic, but if management/ownership blows this one, I'll be changing my mind about their abilities.
Let's not revise history on Ray too much. His last season here looked like a guy on decline. He wasn't bad defensively, he was terrible. And maybe that's easy to blame on Mo since Tippet has gotten a lot out of ray at both ends. Though that doesn't keep Ray from nicely complaining about creativity being stifled in Phoenix.
And let's not render a decision on the Cole contract until the life of the deal is up. If he wanted 10 for 2, JR would have given it to him but he wasn't going to give a four year term at the money required. This deal is still a bad one if he isn't producing in the final two years.
I would have wanted Ray resigned if he agreed to waive his NTC. He didn't and I think letting him go was the right move. Sorta think you gotta take one for the team for a few months if you want to stick around. I would certainly be less likely to offer a NTC again. I understand the point of not waiving it but I think GMs sorta throw those out there assuming a player in his last year would waive it for a team that has shown him a great deal of loyalty. I mean he was going to a contender not Phoenix
That said, our history is full of sad tales of poor asset management and coaching so not surprising that players like Cole, Whitney, Vrbata go on to make Rutherford look silly. The absolute worst was rehiring a coach we fired. That trumps all and makes it difficult to properly assess players that played under Mo.
As far as drafting vs free agency you obviously need both. You certainly can't restock the cupboard by allowing 1st, 2nd liners to leave (Cole, Whitney, Stillman), then draft picks not pan out (Boychuk), and not sign FAs capable of filling those spots. Worst case you sign a desirable FA and he leaves for draft picks later. Even Kaberle returned a serviceable player.
We were fortunate with Skinner but it kept Mo employed and probably gave JR a bit of overconfidence in the team. Slump was inevitable when people figured out his spin move, whine routine. Ideally I'd like a fairly stable top lines with a spot or two opening for youngsters to impress. Not entire line reshuffling, except Staal of course.
Last edited by dogbazinho: 04-02-2012 at 08:27 PM.
I would have wanted Ray resigned if he agreed to waive his NTC. He didn't and I think letting him go was the right move. Sorta think you gotta take one for the team for a few months if you want to stick around. I would certainly be less likely to offer a NTC again. I understand the point of not waiving it but I think GMs sorta throw those out there assuming a player in his last year would waive it for a team that has shown him a great deal of loyalty. I mean he was going to a contender not Phoenix
That said, our history is full of sad tales of poor asset management and coaching so not surprising that players like Cole, Whitney, Vrbata go on to make Rutherford look silly. The absolute worst was rehiring a coach we fired. That trumps all and makes it difficult to properly assess players that played under Mo.
As far as drafting vs free agency you obviously need both. You certainly can't restock the cupboard by allowing 1st, 2nd liners to leave (Cole, Whitney, Stillman), then draft picks not pan out (Boychuk), and not sign FAs capable of filling those spots. Worst case you sign a desirable FA and he leaves for draft picks later. Even Kaberle returned a serviceable player.
We were fortunate with Skinner but it kept Mo employed and probably gave JR a bit of overconfidence in the team. Slump was inevitable when people figured out his spin move, whine routine. Ideally I'd like a fairly stable top lines with a spot or two opening for youngsters to impress. Not entire line reshuffling, except Staal of course.
You make it sound like Vrbata left Carolina and was an instant allstar 60 point guy. Lots of GMs passed on Vrbata at dirt cheap prices, he wasnt simply a silly JR castoff. He didnt exactly light up Chicago or Tampa. He's had 2 good years, and this year is buoyed by an atypical shooting percentage.
Letting Whitney leave didnt make anyone look silly. Noone in the league other than Don Maloney thought Ray was worth that term and money. In retrospect it was a good deal. But if that makes JR look silly then it does the same for 20some other GMs.
Cole, Whitney, and Vrbata were all logical decisions at the time. The pieces JR decided to sign in their places is where he looks ridiculous. Even JRs fourth liner singing since the cup make him look foolish, like he has no idea how to build a roster.
Cole, Whitney, and Vrbata were all logical decisions at the time. The pieces JR decided to sign in their places is where he looks ridiculous. Even JRs fourth liner singing since the cup make him look foolish, like he has no idea how to build a roster.
It burns my butt to see these guys, and the Ladds, Seidenbergs, and Cullens of the world being key players on other teams after Rutherford let them go, but the decisions seemed logical at the time. This management team has got to stop trying to turn chicken **** into chicken salad just because Jussi Jokinen had one good playoffs.
Part of the reason why some of these players flourished elsewhere was Paul Maurice. Even Staal commented on this after Maurice firing 1.0. Ladd was pegged as a 3rd or 4th line guy by Maurice. We all know he was completely wrong.
Every team let's good players go, in some way, shape or form....UFAs, trades, etc. The Canes aren't the only team to make mistakes. GMs don't have crystal balls to predict the future, and there is NO WAY to guarantee that just because a player scored 60 points for another team, that he would have even approached those numbers in Raleigh. You need good linemates, coaching, etc. Both things the Canes were lacking for many years....one is still lacking.
And after saying that, I strongly feel that it would now be foolish to try and bring back Ray Whitney. We gave up two seasons in which he performed well. He's now older, slower if that's possible, and still will NEVER play a physical game and creates a ton of turnovers if he hears someone skating in his direction. He's not getting any younger or better, and to gamble again is foolish. I fully expect JR to consider it!
