It's been said on TSN and NHL Network that the Jets may not want to lock him up that long as he still shows signs of immaturity on and off the ice. They want a 3-4 year deal, so they may not match a 6 year offer.
__________________
Jaime Lannister has better hands than Brian Boyle.
It's been said on TSN and NHL Network that the Jets may not want to lock him up that long as he still shows signs of immaturity on and off the ice. They want a 3-4 year deal, so they may not match a 6 year offer.
It's been said on TSN and NHL Network that the Jets may not want to lock him up that long as he still shows signs of immaturity on and off the ice. They want a 3-4 year deal, so they may not match a 6 year offer.
They're not going to let the future face of their franchise walk for nothing because of term. It's not happening. Worst case they match and then deal him if they really wanted to but since he's going to be an incredibly player I'm sure they'll hold on to him.
They're not going to let the future face of their franchise walk for nothing because of term. It's not happening. Worst case they match and then deal him if they really wanted to but since he's going to be an incredibly player I'm sure they'll hold on to him.
No, I fully agree with you. I think they'd be stupid not to match and I am 99% sure they would match it. I was just saying why they might not.
i see what you did. because i don't like your brilliant idea to bring in a player who has ONE full season to his credit, and has been hampered by substantial injuries for the past 3, I suddenly become an advocate for every asinine trade proposed on the board.
you're reasonable, i'm insane. got it.
I defended my "dumb" idea and argued against your "we screwed up the deadline" rant. You've chosen to ignore it and decided to call me a meanie instead. Okay, fine. Whatever.
I made an additional point related to your "people get cold feet about trades" bit, but really what I'm doing is labeling you as the poster child for bad trade proposals. Got it.
Boohooing after you called my idea "dumb" is just kind of silly.
They're not going to let the future face of their franchise walk for nothing because of term. It's not happening. Worst case they match and then deal him if they really wanted to but since he's going to be an incredibly player I'm sure they'll hold on to him.
Well either way it's not for "nothing." They would get either 3 picks (1st, 2nd, 3rd) or a solid roster piece capable of 20g-50p, without the "attitude" issues they have a problem with, already locked up (Dubinsky), and a draft choice. They don't want to lock Kane up long-term (at least not 6-years) because of their issues with him, and that's a steep contract to swallow for a guy they are on the fence about. This way they get assets back, plus avoid a Nash-in-Columbus type situation. What if Kane never becomes a 40-40 guy like they hope? What if he becomes disgruntled with being on the block (Ryan in Anaheim) and having his team take issue with re-signing him (Parise with the Devils during the Kovalchuk fiasco)? Those are all factors that could be used against them in negotiating a trade for him that involves Kane singing a huge contract. Sure, maybe the Rangers offer more than Dubinksy and a 3rd. Maybe they add a 1st or something else. Jordan Staal got a mid-range D prospect, a 1st, and a cost-effective 3c, and he was signed for another year, put up more points playing a lesser role in a higher-need/profile position, and has a Stanley Cup to his name. What if the Rangers said they were offering a 1-year $6.7 million offer-sheet? Compensation is still a 1, 2, and 3, but then the Jets are in a world of hurt next year if they match, or could take the package of picks and be done.
As a side note, using only the career averages of the players in the proposal (some higher than actual for next year [Gaborik], some lower), that line-up when healthy would be a 285 goal team, and would have beaten Pittsburgh by 3 goals for most in the NHL last season, and doesn't touch the D-corps besides Woywitka and Eminger, neither of whom played much if any role on the Rangers anyhow.
sather please, you have been doing a great job lately, breaking from the likes of gomez/drury, homegrown blue collar guys, clutch superstar in richards
why oh why go after nash, give up the farm for a 7.8 million unproven player, with the likes of doan/whitney/jagr/parise on the table why?
i am still waiting for someone to convince me why we should trade for nash, anyone
sather please, you have been doing a great job lately, breaking from the likes of gomez/drury, homegrown blue collar guys, clutch superstar in richards
why oh why go after nash, give up the farm for a 7.8 million unproven player, with the likes of doan/whitney/jagr/parise on the table why?
i am still waiting for someone to convince me why we should trade for nash, anyone
If we get Nash I bet we get him for 1/2 the price that was on the table in Feb.
I defended my "dumb" idea and argued against your "we screwed up the deadline" rant. You've chosen to ignore it and decided to call me a meanie instead. Okay, fine. Whatever.
I made an additional point related to your "people get cold feet about trades" bit, but really what I'm doing is labeling you as the poster child for bad trade proposals. Got it.
Boohooing after you called my idea "dumb" is just kind of silly.
ok i'll quit "boohooing" and you can quit whining and lecturing... deal?
You barely defended your busted Mueller deal, where you magically insert #s he has yet to attain in full health.
We lost to NJD over depth. The coach said it, the whole org. knows it!
They had no plan after Nash, and it cost them. there were depth moves made in Feb-deadline, we didn't have to end up with john scott! we could have at least gotten a vet defenseman.
I advocate pursuing real top line talent through FA or trade. i'll move Dubinsky or MDZ in order to do it, you won't. You want broken players, I don't. you're afraid of mistakes. Let's see which direction management goes in this Sunday.
I defended my "dumb" idea and argued against your "we screwed up the deadline" rant. You've chosen to ignore it and decided to call me a meanie instead. Okay, fine. Whatever.
I made an additional point related to your "people get cold feet about trades" bit, but really what I'm doing is labeling you as the poster child for bad trade proposals. Got it.
Boohooing after you called my idea "dumb" is just kind of silly.
Not only that, but the answer to "what happens if you bring on a guy with a long injury history (like Mueller) and he gets hurt again?"
is you're in the exact same spot you started, with minimal risk attached to the acquisition. Sounds like a good idea to me given the current UFA and trade environments.
sather please, you have been doing a great job lately, breaking from the likes of gomez/drury, homegrown blue collar guys, clutch superstar in richards
why oh why go after nash, give up the farm for a 7.8 million unproven player, with the likes of doan/whitney/jagr/parise on the table why?
i am still waiting for someone to convince me why we should trade for nash, anyone
I'm not the greatest supporter of a Nash trade (at a high price, anyway), but I don't know about "unproven". That's the type of term you tag on rookies or really young players.
