HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

Blackhawks offersheet Eddie Lack

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-03-2012, 02:28 PM
  #51
OneMoreAstronaut
Reduce chainsaw size
 
OneMoreAstronaut's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,640
vCash: 1360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reign Nateo View Post
That adds nothing to the discussion, what's your point? The point is they were/are considered unproven around here, yet were signed/traded for anyway. So it's not in reality a hinderance of any kind and doesn't need to be stated over and over in these kinds of threads. Whether they had played 0 NHL games or 30 really isn't the point. The point is these teams saw past the "unproven" tag, that's what they're paid to do. Fans just don't seem to get it sometimes...
Your inability to distinguish between goalies who had or have played 16, 85, and 60 games respectively, and a goalie who has played no games, is entirely personal and no fault of mine. Gosh, fans just don't seem to get it sometimes...

*edit: and let's not worry about the fact that I didn't include Stanley Cup Playoff games in those numbers, for your benefit.

OneMoreAstronaut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 02:53 PM
  #52
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 18,894
vCash: 500
The OP is an easy match for the Canucks, the two year contract takes away any games played measures.

If he signs a one year deal, he'll have to play a certain number of games, or the Canucks would lose his rights as a group 2 (?) UFA.

Two years is an easy match, if you want Lack, you'd have to pay him $2+ million a year on a multi year deal, and he likely still gets kept, and I highly doubt any teams are willing to do that.

arsmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 02:55 PM
  #53
digdug41982
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 26,474
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
If he signs a one year deal, he'll have to play a certain number of games, or the Canucks would lose his rights as a group 2 (?) UFA.
That's what I'm looking for, the poison pill, please elaborate.

digdug41982 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 03:04 PM
  #54
LickTheEnvelope
6th Overall Blows
 
LickTheEnvelope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 28,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
The OP is an easy match for the Canucks, the two year contract takes away any games played measures.

If he signs a one year deal, he'll have to play a certain number of games, or the Canucks would lose his rights as a group 2 (?) UFA.

Two years is an easy match, if you want Lack, you'd have to pay him $2+ million a year on a multi year deal, and he likely still gets kept, and I highly doubt any teams are willing to do that.
It wont happen.

I personally think Lack will be better, long-term, than Schneider... but I don't think a goalie has ever been signed to an offer sheet becaue it would just be matched.

That and Lack isn't fully NHL ready. Maybe as a limited backup but for his development he needs a 60 game AHL season, IMO.

LickTheEnvelope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 03:06 PM
  #55
DJOpus
Registered User
 
DJOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,807
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldsteelonice84 View Post
That's what I'm looking for, the poison pill, please elaborate.
Lack will be a group IV UFA like Bishop was slated to if he doesn't play something like 35 NHL games.

Schneider was in the same position two years ago and signed a two year deal to help the Canucks keep his rights, Lack will likely do the same but will use the leverage to get a one-way IMO... Just like Schneider.

DJOpus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 03:16 PM
  #56
digdug41982
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 26,474
vCash: 50
So if the Hawks offersheeted him on a 1 year deal, he'd have to play 35 games and if the Canucks can't trade Luongo, they can't match, correct?

digdug41982 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 03:19 PM
  #57
LickTheEnvelope
6th Overall Blows
 
LickTheEnvelope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 28,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldsteelonice84 View Post
So if the Hawks offersheeted him on a 1 year deal, he'd have to play 35 games and if the Canucks can't trade Luongo, they can't match, correct?
?

They could match even if they can't trade Luongo. Unless the offer for Lack is $2 + mil.

LickTheEnvelope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 03:19 PM
  #58
Reign Nateo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,996
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skoogs View Post
It's really not. Teams take the information they have and use that to project the player they could become. That's why a player like Jarnkrok or Silfverberg has value, despite not playing in the NHL yet.

The whole point is that Lack being unproven means he'd cost significantly less than an established goalie, while still having that potential.
Thank you. This is all I'm saying. Shouldn't be hard to grasp.

Would Lack have more value if he had experience at the NHL level? Yes. Would that factor stop teams from trying to acquire him? Of course not.

Reign Nateo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 03:23 PM
  #59
digdug41982
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 26,474
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by LickTheEnvelope View Post
?

They could match even if they can't trade Luongo. Unless the offer for Lack is $2 + mil.
Really, with the cap space we have, we should just get the 3rd back and do just that.

digdug41982 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 03:27 PM
  #60
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Offering a 2 years contract is a bad move... one year is the way to go.

Vancouver have no choice but to play him 27 NHL games this season, or sign him beyond this 2013 or he will become UFA at the end of the season.

palindrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 03:29 PM
  #61
digdug41982
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 26,474
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
Offering a 2 years contract is a bad move... one year is the way to go.

Vancouver have no choice but to play him 27 NHL games this season, or sign him beyond this 2013 or he will become UFA at the end of the season.
Yeah, that is what I am proposing then, thanks to those who clarified the rules.

digdug41982 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 03:31 PM
  #62
DJOpus
Registered User
 
DJOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,807
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by palindrom View Post
Offering a 2 years contract is a bad move... one year is the way to go.

Vancouver have no choice but to play him 27 NHL games this season, or sign him beyond this 2013 or he will become UFA at the end of the season.
The thing is, if Chicago signs him to a one-year offersheet they have to play him 27 games or he becomes a UFA. I highly doubt Chicago wants to play a rookie goalie 27 games. They also wouldn't be able to re-sign him until after July 1 so he would automatically either become a UFA or RFA depending on how many games he plays.

DJOpus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 03:32 PM
  #63
digdug41982
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 26,474
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
The thing is, if Chicago signs him to a one-year offersheet they have to play him 27 games or he becomes a UFA. I highly doubt Chicago wants to play a rookie goalie 27 games. They also wouldn't be able to re-sign him until after July 1 so he would automatically either become a UFA or RFA depending on how many games he plays.
The 27 games is not an issue for us. Did you see the Hawks goalies last year?

digdug41982 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 04:01 PM
  #64
palindrom
Registered User
 
palindrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
The thing is, if Chicago signs him to a one-year offersheet they have to play him 27 games or he becomes a UFA. I highly doubt Chicago wants to play a rookie goalie 27 games. They also wouldn't be able to re-sign him until after July 1 so he would automatically either become a UFA or RFA depending on how many games he plays.
I dont see any in problem in playing a 24-25yo goalie rookie 27 games. I mean if he is good, and they plan to resign him, they will play him 27 games at least. If he is bad then they will not mind if he become UFA as they would not plan to resign him. They can also acquire him, play him X number of games and for whatever reason still trade him for something of value (think Bishop.. a 2nd-3th round) to another team who will play him the remaining number of games.

Also, its not even 27 games, its 27 time 30 minutes.

Edit, i think i made a mistake and its 28 games:

Quote:
(c) Group 6 Free Agents.

(i) Means any Player who is age 25 or older who has completed three
(3) or more professional seasons, whose SPC has expired and: (i)
in the case of a Player other than a goaltender, has played less than
80 NHL Games, or (ii) in the case of a goaltender, has played less
than 28 NHL Games (for the purpose of this definition, a
goaltender must have played a minimum of thirty (30) minutes in
an NHL Game to register a game played). For the purposes of the
foregoing, the term professional season shall: (A) for a Player aged
18 or 19, mean any season in which such Player plays in eleven
(11) or more Professional Games (including NHL Regular Season
and Playoff Games, minor league regular season and playoff
games, and games played in any European professional league,
while under an SPC), and (B) for a Player aged 20 or older, mean
any season in which such Player plays in one or more Professional
Games (including NHL Regular Season and Playoff Games, minor
league regular season and playoff games, and games played in any
European professional league, while under an SPC).

(ii) Any Group 6 Player shall, at the expiration of his SPC, become an
Unrestricted Free Agent and shall be completely free to negotiate
and sign an SPC with any Club, and any Club shall be completely
free to negotiate and sign an SPC with such Player, without penalty
or restriction, or being subject to any Right of First Refusal, Draft
Choice Compensation or any other compensation or equalization
obligation of any kind.


Last edited by palindrom: 08-03-2012 at 04:09 PM.
palindrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 04:57 PM
  #65
Luck 6
\\_______
 
Luck 6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 7,474
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reign Nateo View Post
The "unproven" comment is very annoying around here...

That's why you have GM's to make desicisons, who utilize their pro scouts and staff to make choices and acquire players they see as fits for their organization. It's called foresight. It's much cheaper to acquire these players at this stage then wait for them to blow up and then try to get them.

Of course he's unproven at the NHL level, you don't need to say it every second post! It's obvious, the point is you scout a player and decide whether you think he fits your team/needs, GMs don't just sit there saying "no, he's unproven, we'll wait for something else." That's what the OP is touching on here. They trust the people within their organization to make informed decisons.

People around here called Lindback unproven, did that stop Yzerman and the Lightning? Halak had a lot to prove according to the masses, did that stop the Blues? Schneider is probably still considered unproven, but it didn't stop Gillis from giving him a sizeable 4 year contract.

Sorry, end rant, just see it all the time and it's annoying. Not neccisarily just in the Lack case, but overall. You have to think a little deeper instead of just saying "he's unproven" try to offer a little more to the discussion.
Thank you.

Yakupov has proven nothing as well, so why is Edmonton willing to pay him 3.775mil next season? Lack has proven that he can excel in pro hockey, and has shown every indication that he will be a starter in the NHL. At his age, that is enough "proof" for a GM to go after him should they be high on him.

Luck 6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 05:13 PM
  #66
Orrthebest
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 815
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Griffin View Post
One-way and two-way contracts have no bearing on waiver eligibility, they simply determine the salary at the NHL and AHL level.
This isn't not totally correct. The minimum salary for a one way contract is 550 thousand and any player who will be making more than 105 thousand in the AHL has to be placed on waiver before assignment. So yes the one-way doesn't change the waiver status but the amount he would make playing in the AHL does.

Orrthebest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 05:13 PM
  #67
DJOpus
Registered User
 
DJOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,807
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldsteelonice84 View Post
The 27 games is not an issue for us. Did you see the Hawks goalies last year?
Wow, I actually didn't realize quite how bad they were...let me introduce you to this guy we have. Roberto Luongo.

He would have saved 42 extra goals for you guys if he put up a normal save% for him (0.920) and played 82 games.

DJOpus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 05:43 PM
  #68
TorstenFrings
Co-Trainer
 
TorstenFrings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Kiel
Country: Germany
Posts: 4,642
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orrthebest View Post
This isn't not totally correct. The minimum salary for a one way contract is 550 thousand and any player who will be making more than 105 thousand in the AHL has to be placed on waiver before assignment. So yes the one-way doesn't change the waiver status but the amount he would make playing in the AHL does.
This only applies to players that are not waiver exempt anymore, which Lack still is and in the case of a 2 year contract or less would be for the whole time of said contract.

TorstenFrings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 06:10 PM
  #69
lush
@jasonlush
 
lush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,362
vCash: 500
It's a creative idea but won't work in my opinion

lush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 07:15 PM
  #70
HockeySensible
Smug Teuvo
 
HockeySensible's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,992
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luck 6 View Post
Uhhh... 1mil is not a lot of money. ELCs are typically 900k +. Lack is our 3rd best prospect, do you really think we let him walk over 1 mil per season?
Whaaa? You hef to be pulling my leg.

HockeySensible is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 07:18 PM
  #71
HockeySensible
Smug Teuvo
 
HockeySensible's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,992
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
Wow, I actually didn't realize quite how bad they were...let me introduce you to this guy we have. Roberto Luongo.

He would have saved 42 extra goals for you guys if he put up a normal save% for him (0.920) and played 82 games.
Roberto Luongo, behind the Hawks defense, would have put up just as medicore a SV%.

Bad defense / Choking x Fan abuse + Poor coaching = .907SV%.

There you have it. Math.

HockeySensible is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 07:24 PM
  #72
xtra
Registered User
 
xtra's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 3,091
vCash: 500
So here is the question...why would Lack risk injury to sign a one year deal? Signing a one year deal makes no sense for him. 2 or 3 year deal i could see but 1 year makes no sense

xtra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 07:38 PM
  #73
digdug41982
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 26,474
vCash: 50
Cash and great opportunity. We'd need one of our O-oops-ya picks back though.

digdug41982 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 08:19 PM
  #74
Flyerfan52
Registered User
 
Flyerfan52's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by xtra View Post
So here is the question...why would Lack risk injury to sign a one year deal? Signing a one year deal makes no sense for him. 2 or 3 year deal i could see but 1 year makes no sense
A chance to be a starter rather then 3rd on the list might sway a player.
Any player worth having want's to play in the show.

Flyerfan52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 08:22 PM
  #75
LickTheEnvelope
6th Overall Blows
 
LickTheEnvelope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 28,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luck 6 View Post
Thank you.

Yakupov has proven nothing as well, so why is Edmonton willing to pay him 3.775mil next season? Lack has proven that he can excel in pro hockey, and has shown every indication that he will be a starter in the NHL. At his age, that is enough "proof" for a GM to go after him should they be high on him.
They actually aren't paying Yakupov $3.775 mil, that is what he will be paid if he hits ALL bonuses, which is likely next to impossible.

LickTheEnvelope 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 07:22 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.