HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
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.

Stars sign Lehtonen to extension (5 years/29.5 M)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-14-2012, 09:56 AM
  #26
SmellOfVictory
Registered User
 
SmellOfVictory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,690
vCash: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jagorim Jarg View Post
"Owners are signing players to play for their hockey teams? Hahaha I guess they were lying when they said teams are struggling financially!"
Exactly. The owners might be having financial difficulties, but those difficulties only get worse if you're icing an AHL-level team because you refuse to pay out substantial contracts to your core players. The rhetoric on the PA's side is hilariously biased/ignorant.

SmellOfVictory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 10:03 AM
  #27
Marc the Habs Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Longueuil
Country: Canada
Posts: 50,001
vCash: 597
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOG26 View Post
I don't get why any team, or any player would sign a long term deal with the potential for rollbacks to happen or not to happen. Assuming the players are signing the contracts with the idea that the owners will actually honour them. While the owners are hoping for a 20% rollback so they have a player for cheap long term and with nothing the player can do about it.
I think the players are legitimately convinced there will be no rollbacks, after-all, it's in their hands to determine whether there will be a rollback or not.

Marc the Habs Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 10:06 AM
  #28
DG
Registered User
 
DG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,723
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jagorim Jarg View Post
"Owners are signing players to play for their hockey teams? Hahaha I guess they were lying when they said teams are struggling financially!"
Absolutely, you're right. The best time to spend (loads) of money on players is right before you're about to lock them out for being overpaid and while saying that this current system is completely dysfunctional. That makes so much sense. There's no way that they could sign these players after a new CBA, right? You know, in a system where they could conceivably operate?

This is flat out BS.

And for the record, I don't think the players are necessarily in the right, but collective bargaining 101 would say don't strong arm your position at the bargaining table while being a monstrous hypocrite at all times when you aren't at the table.

It's just more evidence that collective bargaining isn't being taken seriously enough.

DG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 10:06 AM
  #29
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,491
vCash: 500
geez is every signing thread full of lame "omg but the ownerz r poor!" crap? Dallas has a low payroll and a new owner with deep pockets. Noone has stated that every team is in trouble.

I don't really believe in paying a goaltender that much but its in line with similar goalies. Without him these last few years Dallas may have been a bottom 5 team. With Lethonen they found themselves with a decent chance to make the playoffs.

txomisc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 10:09 AM
  #30
CN_paladin
Registered User
 
CN_paladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westeros
Posts: 2,651
vCash: 500
Dallas must have agreed to this contract with a future rollback in mind. 6M/yr is too much for an injury prone guy.

CN_paladin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 10:09 AM
  #31
Karitimes
JetsJetsJets
 
Karitimes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,332
vCash: 500
If you like goaltending, he's a very entertaining guy to watch. His athleticism and puckhandling are exceptional. He's come a long way to earning this and his performance truly has gone largely underpaid the past 2 seasons. Solid deal for the Stars, now put some D in front of the guy.

Karitimes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 10:10 AM
  #32
DG
Registered User
 
DG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,723
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txomisc View Post
geez is every signing thread full of lame "omg but the ownerz r poor!" crap? Dallas has a low payroll and a new owner with deep pockets. Noone has stated that every team is in trouble.
So as a team, the owners should agree to a signing freeze for the purposes of bargaining. 100% as simple as that. These players are RFAs*... they aren't going anywhere. There is literally no urgency to these signings.

Unless of course, to let the hypocrisy continue, owners are worried that they will have more trouble signing their players to a club-friendly contracts in a new system - you know, the one that they are huffing and puffing is absolutely "necessary" for business to continue?

EDIT: *RFAs and/or already under contract for next year.

DG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 10:20 AM
  #33
WhiskeySeven
Enlarged Member
 
WhiskeySeven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 13,689
vCash: 500
At least it makes the Price deal seem reasonable. Lehtonen is definitely not worth speculative elite goalie money, he's done squat in the playoffs and he has a very checkered past. Oh well, not my problem.

WhiskeySeven is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 10:23 AM
  #34
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,491
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DG View Post
So as a team, the owners should agree to a signing freeze for the purposes of bargaining. 100% as simple as that. These players are RFAs*... they aren't going anywhere. There is literally no urgency to these signings.

Unless of course, to let the hypocrisy continue, owners are worried that they will have more trouble signing their players to a club-friendly contracts in a new system - you know, the one that they are huffing and puffing is absolutely "necessary" for business to continue?

EDIT: *RFAs and/or already under contract for next year.
Are you trying to say the owners of different teams should come to an agreement together not to sign anyone right now? I am not sure but I think that would be collusion.

txomisc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 10:24 AM
  #35
Habs 4 Life
No Excuses
 
Habs 4 Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Italy
Posts: 32,891
vCash: 500
wow great deal for Lehtonen, I like the guy but not sure i'd offer him that much

Habs 4 Life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 10:35 AM
  #36
DG
Registered User
 
DG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,723
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txomisc View Post
Are you trying to say the owners of different teams should come to an agreement together not to sign anyone right now? I am not sure but I think that would be collusion.
How is that collusion?

Are you actually trying to suggest that the owners are all sitting at 30 different tables at collective bargaining and that each owner is trying to negotiate terms that are to their own, personal liking? (though that would explain the lack of progress)

No. There are two sides, the Employer (NHL owners) and the employees (NHLPA). The owners are a team that work together and so are the players. If the owners decide not to sign anyone until a new CBA is reached, that is 100% within their discretion. There would be nothing stopping them from deciding as a team not to.

As someone pointed out, they are just signing players to play hockey. Well if an Employer (the league) decides they don't need any employees (players), particularly because there isn't going to be any business done (hockey played) this year, why would they enter in to contracts to pay them?

Yet, here we are...

If a company is going bankrupt, they don't hire more employees. If the owners are truly broke as they claim, and can't afford players under the current system, shouldn't they wait until there is a "fair" system before making new commitments to pay players?

DG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 10:35 AM
  #37
joe89
#5
 
joe89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Country: Sweden
Posts: 16,562
vCash: 500
Well worth if Lehtonen plays to his best. That said, six years? They must've been really convinced with his health when he showed up after summer.

joe89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 10:35 AM
  #38
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 24,855
vCash: 688
Not a fan of this deal. Lehtonen isn't exactly the healthiest goalie and that type of money puts him pretty close to top 5 goalie in the league, which he is not.

joestevens29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 10:41 AM
  #39
TrillMike
Registered User
 
TrillMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 3,901
vCash: 500
Everyone b-ing about his health,
Kari has played 128 games over the past 2 seasons. If you look at goalues who started a minimum of 50 games last year, Kari was a top 5 goaltender. After he was traded to Dallas he changed his workout routine and diet dramatically.

TrillMike is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 10:43 AM
  #40
Ambassador Of Fun
Registered User
 
Ambassador Of Fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,498
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
Not a fan of this deal. Lehtonen isn't exactly the healthiest goalie and that type of money puts him pretty close to top 5 goalie in the league, which he is not.
He is now the 8th highest paid goalie in the NHL and was 10th in save % and 8th in GAA, so it sounds like that is exactly what he is.

Ambassador Of Fun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 10:45 AM
  #41
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 24,855
vCash: 688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambassador Of Fun View Post
He is now the 8th highest paid goalie in the NHL and was 10th in save % and 8th in GAA, so it sounds like that is exactly what he is.
Doing that for one year doesn't justify the contract.

joestevens29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 10:46 AM
  #42
JS19
Pls Sharks win
 
JS19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The Shark Tank
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,142
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
Not a fan of this deal. Lehtonen isn't exactly the healthiest goalie and that type of money puts him pretty close to top 5 goalie in the league, which he is not.
2010-2011: 68 games > 34-24-0
2011-2012: 59 games > 32-22-4

Overall, in 2 years he seems to have developed some consistency in regards to his health. Plus he has become well conditioned and trained for the part of playing goaltending, so I don't really understand how health is a big issue? Stats-wise, he pulled 0.91 and 0.92 Sv% years (for more, also pulled 2.33 and 2.55 GAA ), I think that qualifies as a good goaltender.

Money on the other hand can be argued, 5.9 puts him in the likes of Bryzgalov (who I think is not better than Lehtonen), Niklas Backstrom, Ryan Miller, Cam Ward, Roberto Luongo and Miikka Kiprusoff. So you could really argue that Lehtonen matches the talent crop or surpasses at least 2 goaltenders.

JS19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 10:59 AM
  #43
HockeyThoughts
Delivering The Truth
 
HockeyThoughts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Mississauga, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,249
vCash: 500
Solid goalie, good term but due to his longstanding injury concerns 6M cap hit is just too much. 6M may be his peak value but you negotiate down 0.5M-1M based on the concerns over his health.

And I'm sorry two seasons of regular play for the Stars (where he was still forced out of the line-up with back and groin issues) is not enough to shake the injury prone label.

HockeyThoughts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 11:00 AM
  #44
KovalSNIPE
Registered User
 
KovalSNIPE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 666
vCash: 500
What about Campbell? He'll be ready before this contract is up...

KovalSNIPE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 11:01 AM
  #45
Ambassador Of Fun
Registered User
 
Ambassador Of Fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,498
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
Doing that for one year doesn't justify the contract.
So the 8th best goalie in the NHL doesn't deserve the 8th most money? Who deserves the 8th most money? The 15th best goalie? The 20th best goalie?

Ambassador Of Fun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 11:02 AM
  #46
Zoidberg Jesus
Trotzkyist
 
Zoidberg Jesus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: United States
Posts: 2,744
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DG View Post
So as a team, the owners should agree to a signing freeze for the purposes of bargaining. 100% as simple as that. These players are RFAs*... they aren't going anywhere. There is literally no urgency to these signings.

Unless of course, to let the hypocrisy continue, owners are worried that they will have more trouble signing their players to a club-friendly contracts in a new system - you know, the one that they are huffing and puffing is absolutely "necessary" for business to continue?

EDIT: *RFAs and/or already under contract for next year.
I'm not sure how it is in other leagues, but I've heard that unsigned players, like these RFAs, can't get out clauses from the KHL. There's a decent chance other big name leagues will be doing the same. Maybe signing Kari today means he can go to SM-Liiga for the lockout and still get an out clause. I think that'd be a pretty decent incentive for both the team and the player to get a deal done now.

Zoidberg Jesus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 11:03 AM
  #47
kmad
Riot Survivor
 
kmad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 31,766
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DG View Post
How is that collusion?
It's the definition of collusion.

kmad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 11:06 AM
  #48
Aucoin11*
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 939
vCash: 500

Aucoin11* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 11:06 AM
  #49
Kershaw
 
Kershaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country:
Posts: 25,519
vCash: 50
Now I'm very confused by the Jack Campbell pick.

It's somewhat like if the Devils drafted Al Montoya-lite goalie high in the 1st round when they have a Brodeur in his prime.

Kershaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 11:07 AM
  #50
coldsteelonice84
Registered User
 
coldsteelonice84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 24,662
vCash: 10592
Quote:
Originally Posted by KovalSNIPE View Post
What about Campbell? He'll be ready before this contract is up...
He's only 20 and has a lot of work to do. So he'll be an NHL backup at 23, 24, 25, then take over. Makes sense.

coldsteelonice84 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 07:17 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.