HFBoards

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

Evander Kane.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-07-2012, 09:25 AM
  #51
vBurmi
Blue-Line Dekes
 
vBurmi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Totally lost
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,465
vCash: 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by atl thrasher344 View Post
Personally, I don't think he'll finish with 30 goals this year just because it will probably take him a couple games to get back into things but it is possible.
Regardless, there's no way he's getting paid 2.5M. He has been the Jets best offensive weapon this year. Being a one-dimensional player pays off when that dimension is goal scoring.

The comparisons to Wheeler's contract value are off IMO. Wheeler got that contract before this season and before this season he hadn't proven much.

vBurmi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2012, 09:48 AM
  #52
Howard Chuck
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Howard Chuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,236
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter sullivan View Post
are there any other players with concussions that dont know when they got them, i wonder?...would be interesting to know.

why do you assume that he was the victim and not the antagonist?...

if he was attacked, i can understand your point, but most scuffles at a bar that i have seen have been two way affairs....either way you can understand why it is in his best interest to not be public about it.
I don't want to see this thread continue in this way, but I have spent a LOT of time in bars over the past few decades, and I can tell you that drunks want to try to take out the biggest fish in the bar all the time. Most of the time it's small man syndrome and the big guy doesn't want any part of it.

IF,,,, IF this is how he got his concussion, he could EASILY have been an innocent victim. If I was 20 and had lots of money, I'd want to go out and have a good time as well.

Howard Chuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2012, 09:53 AM
  #53
jamiebez
Registered User
 
jamiebez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,668
vCash: 500
Back to the original question:

$3M per on a 2-3 year deal OR

$4.5-5M per on a 4-5 year deal

I think we'll see the former.

jamiebez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2012, 09:57 AM
  #54
Grind
Stomacheache AllStar
 
Grind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 4,402
vCash: 500
As for "not knowing" when he got his concussion, this is quite normal you'll find(hits compounded by other hits, multiple tumbles game after game, etc). You'll also find a lot of players had (until the last 2-3 years) the tendency to play through concussion symptoms and shrug them off. As stated, until 3-4 years ago, this was definitely the Rule NOT the exception.

As for Kane's public image, lets be clear on what Kane is getting paid to do: Play hockey. He's not paid to be the voice of our children or the Canadian Hockey Pope, he's paid to put the puck in the net. So far, he's done that admirably and I'd love to have him resigned.

Could he have a little more humility or stay out of the spotlight- sure he could, but he could also be a lot worse. I'm not going to fault a 20 year old for making one mistake (in the off chance there is any weight to aforementioned rumors).

Finally, not one of us is in the dressing room, which is where his "attitude" really counts. Claude Noel, Chevy, etc, are in the dressing room and they will make the correct decision regarding this players attitude and how it affects the locker room dynamic.

Anyone calling for a trade should due to questions about character should be given as much credibility as a blind man critiquing a painting. I won't believe a word of "distractions" or "attitude" until i hear it from the horse's mouth. The horse being anyone actually tied to the Jets organization.

Grind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2012, 09:59 AM
  #55
Guerzy
HFBoards Contributor
 
Guerzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Lake
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,200
vCash: 50
Whatever the dollars and cents come down to, he's got 4 seasons beginning next year until he'll be a UFA, so it makes no sense to sign him to a term of 4 or 5 years. We'll lose out on all bargaining power if we do that.

If we want to get the most out of this young player, I think it would be wise to sign him to a 2-3 year deal, then if we feel he is a piece we want to lock up to a 5,6 or 7 year deal, and he is interested in that, then we do so while he's still a RFA and a year or two away from having UFA status. If we feel otherwise about him being a Jet long-term, or he does, we can deal him and he'll still be in a good position contractually for other teams to have some power with him as a RFA. There is absolutely no need or reason to go long-term right now. In my opinion you don't go long-term with a player until the final year or two of him being a RFA, that way you lock him up through his prime years as well as his UFA years. That's what you want, in my opinion.

The absolute last thing we want is to have a case of Zach Parise/New Jersey or Ryan Suter/Nashville on our hands. These guys have contracts that take them right up to being a UFA this summer... that is extremely risky. If we play our cards right, we could sign Kane this summer to a 2 year deal, which would then bring us to the summer of 2014 in which Kane would still have 2 more years of RFA status. At that time, we could lock him up to a 7-8 year deal, which would leave him playing the first 2 years of the contract in RFA status, and we would get the next 5-6 years of his UFA years. That is key, in my opinion. If we do that, we would have Kane locked up until he was at least 30 years of age.

I think we have to first and foremost play this with the term. We don't want to lose a young player like this at the young age of 24. And, believe it or not, he'll be just 24 (as his birth date is in August) on the first day of being UFA eligible on July 1st, 2016. Talk about young.


Last edited by Guerzy: 02-07-2012 at 10:13 AM.
Guerzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2012, 10:01 AM
  #56
MadMen88
Registered User
 
MadMen88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 708
vCash: 500
One thing is forsure. If we don't trade Kane and he doesn't re-sign then we better go after a pretty big fish in the UFA pool.

MadMen88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2012, 10:09 AM
  #57
Grind
Stomacheache AllStar
 
Grind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 4,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guerzy View Post
Whatever the dollars and cents come down to, he's got 4 seasons beginning next year until he'll be a UFA, so it makes no sense to sign him to a term of 4 or 5 years. We'll lose out on all bargaining power if we do that.

If we want to get the most out of this young player, I think it would be wise to sign him to a 2-3 year deal, then if we feel he is a piece we want to lock up to a 5,6 or 7 year deal, and he is interested in that, then we do so while he's still a RFA and a year or two away from having UFA status. If we feel otherwise about him being a Jet long-term, or he does, we can deal him and he'll still be in a good position contractually for other teams to have some power with him as a RFA.

I think we have to first and foremost play this with the term. We don't want to lose a young player like this at the young age of 24. And, believe it or not, he'll be just 24 (as his birth date is in August) on the first day of being UFA eligible on July 1st, 2016. Talk about young.
This is pretty much how i feel.

Do a deal to get him to 1-2 years left RFA. If at that time he's part of the long term, throw a decent length contract to eat up as much of his UFA as you can. If not, do another shorter deal, plan to extend or trade if it's not 'working out' .

I think your cost for the first deal would probably be 4-4.5. As of right now he's not yet worth 5, but once the initial deals up he very well could be. And sinice we don't really have a load of budding stars here, i think we can afford to be cautious and not risk the "long as possible, cheap as possible" contract to keep him.

Grind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2012, 10:13 AM
  #58
KingBogo
Admitted Homer
 
KingBogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 7,510
vCash: 851
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guerzy View Post
Whatever the dollars and cents come down to, he's got 4 seasons beginning next year until he'll be a UFA, so it makes no sense to sign him to a term of 4 or 5 years. We'll lose out on all bargaining power if we do that.

If we want to get the most out of this young player, I think it would be wise to sign him to a 2-3 year deal, then if we feel he is a piece we want to lock up to a 5,6 or 7 year deal, and he is interested in that, then we do so while he's still a RFA and a year or two away from having UFA status. If we feel otherwise about him being a Jet long-term, or he does, we can deal him and he'll still be in a good position contractually for other teams to have some power with him as a RFA.

I think we have to first and foremost play this with the term. We don't want to lose a young player like this at the young age of 24. And, believe it or not, he'll be just 24 (as his birth date is in August) on the first day of being UFA eligible on July 1st, 2016. Talk about young.
I agree with you Guerzy, and posted almost the exact thing last night. 4 years is a terrible length of contract, as you set him free just as he becomes a free agent. That would be extremely poor asset management. Kane hasn't done enough yet to get the big $ long term deal like a Crosby, Malkin or Ovi type deal. Cosequently a 2 year "show me you are worth it" contract is the best. I would say approx 3 m - 3.5 m per. It worked well for the Jets with Bogo, and it's looking like Bogo will earn the big $ long term contract 1 1/2 years from now.

KingBogo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2012, 10:27 AM
  #59
Huffer
Registered User
 
Huffer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 10,670
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guerzy View Post
Whatever the dollars and cents come down to, he's got 4 seasons beginning next year until he'll be a UFA, so it makes no sense to sign him to a term of 4 or 5 years. We'll lose out on all bargaining power if we do that.

If we want to get the most out of this young player, I think it would be wise to sign him to a 2-3 year deal, then if we feel he is a piece we want to lock up to a 5,6 or 7 year deal, and he is interested in that, then we do so while he's still a RFA and a year or two away from having UFA status. If we feel otherwise about him being a Jet long-term, or he does, we can deal him and he'll still be in a good position contractually for other teams to have some power with him as a RFA. There is absolutely no need or reason to go long-term right now. In my opinion you don't go long-term with a player until the final year or two of him being a RFA, that way you lock him up through his prime years as well as his UFA years. That's what you want, in my opinion.

The absolute last thing we want is to have a case of Zach Parise/New Jersey or Ryan Suter/Nashville on our hands. These guys have contracts that take them right up to being a UFA this summer... that is extremely risky. If we play our cards right, we could sign Kane this summer to a 2 year deal, which would then bring us to the summer of 2014 in which Kane would still have 2 more years of RFA status. At that time, we could lock him up to a 7-8 year deal, which would leave him playing the first 2 years of the contract in RFA status, and we would get the next 5-6 years of his UFA years. That is key, in my opinion. If we do that, we would have Kane locked up until he was at least 30 years of age.

I think we have to first and foremost play this with the term. We don't want to lose a young player like this at the young age of 24. And, believe it or not, he'll be just 24 (as his birth date is in August) on the first day of being UFA eligible on July 1st, 2016. Talk about young.
/thread.

Bravo!

Huffer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2012, 10:31 AM
  #60
ps241
It's closing time.
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 13,619
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grind View Post
As for "not knowing" when he got his concussion, this is quite normal you'll find(hits compounded by other hits, multiple tumbles game after game, etc). You'll also find a lot of players had (until the last 2-3 years) the tendency to play through concussion symptoms and shrug them off. As stated, until 3-4 years ago, this was definitely the Rule NOT the exception.

As for Kane's public image, lets be clear on what Kane is getting paid to do: Play hockey. He's not paid to be the voice of our children or the Canadian Hockey Pope, he's paid to put the puck in the net. So far, he's done that admirably and I'd love to have him resigned.

Could he have a little more humility or stay out of the spotlight- sure he could, but he could also be a lot worse. I'm not going to fault a 20 year old for making one mistake (in the off chance there is any weight to aforementioned rumors).

Finally, not one of us is in the dressing room, which is where his "attitude" really counts. Claude Noel, Chevy, etc, are in the dressing room and they will make the correct decision regarding this players attitude and how it affects the locker room dynamic.Anyone calling for a trade should due to questions about character should be given as much credibility as a blind man critiquing a painting. I won't believe a word of "distractions" or "attitude" until i hear it from the horse's mouth. The horse being anyone actually tied to the Jets organization.
Bingo we have a winner..........EK could use some work on his public image but he can do that by staying dark on social media and laying low for a while. I think this side of the story is more interesting for the public and I don't think it really matters when it comes to his contract negotiations this summer although long term TNSE will want to see more alignment with image related challenges.

However, in your 4th post you have hit the nail on the head with the bolded part above and this will play into his contract negotiations in my opinion. This is where the rubber hits the road as far as contract terms go and why I don't think we see any 5 year contracts with EK this summer at least.......his talent for a 20 year old is special and we will need to pay market value for it, but, if I was a betting man (and I am not) I would wager that TNSE will hope to see growth in the bolded part above first before we see any long term big money deals.

This is not about gossip it is about business and about the long term vision of what our team will be and making sure Evander grows into a strong cultural fit for that vision.

ps241 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2012, 10:36 AM
  #61
ps241
It's closing time.
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 13,619
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guerzy View Post
Whatever the dollars and cents come down to, he's got 4 seasons beginning next year until he'll be a UFA, so it makes no sense to sign him to a term of 4 or 5 years. We'll lose out on all bargaining power if we do that.

If we want to get the most out of this young player, I think it would be wise to sign him to a 2-3 year deal, then if we feel he is a piece we want to lock up to a 5,6 or 7 year deal, and he is interested in that, then we do so while he's still a RFA and a year or two away from having UFA status. If we feel otherwise about him being a Jet long-term, or he does, we can deal him and he'll still be in a good position contractually for other teams to have some power with him as a RFA. There is absolutely no need or reason to go long-term right now. In my opinion you don't go long-term with a player until the final year or two of him being a RFA, that way you lock him up through his prime years as well as his UFA years. That's what you want, in my opinion.

The absolute last thing we want is to have a case of Zach Parise/New Jersey or Ryan Suter/Nashville on our hands. These guys have contracts that take them right up to being a UFA this summer... that is extremely risky. If we play our cards right, we could sign Kane this summer to a 2 year deal, which would then bring us to the summer of 2014 in which Kane would still have 2 more years of RFA status. At that time, we could lock him up to a 7-8 year deal, which would leave him playing the first 2 years of the contract in RFA status, and we would get the next 5-6 years of his UFA years. That is key, in my opinion. If we do that, we would have Kane locked up until he was at least 30 years of age.

I think we have to first and foremost play this with the term. We don't want to lose a young player like this at the young age of 24. And, believe it or not, he'll be just 24 (as his birth date is in August) on the first day of being UFA eligible on July 1st, 2016. Talk about young.
perfect post and spot on.........I would be shocked if this isn't the song sheet Chevy is singing off of?

ps241 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2012, 10:56 AM
  #62
Guerzy
HFBoards Contributor
 
Guerzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Lake
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,200
vCash: 50
And to rant on just a little bit more (), my opinion is Nashville deserves to be in the position they are in with Ryan Suter because they are the ones that made all of this possible. Poor asset management is what it is, and given Suter has been a RFA thus far in his career, it was Nashville that had the bargaining power and leverage. They tossed all of that out the window 4 years ago. Of course there is being loyal, but there is also be stupid and unwise with your assets, and that's what they were, in my honest opinion.

Ryan Suter finished his entry level contract at the end of the 2008 season. Suter then had 3 years NHL experience and 4 years remaining as a RFA (just like Kane does at the end of this season). In all of Nashville's wisdom, what do they do? they sign a 22 turning 23 year old Suter to a 4 year deal, which eats up his 4 remaining RFA years and leaves him dangling free in the wind this summer as a ..................... UFA. Slap me silly and call me stupid, Nashville.

In my opinion, he should have been signed to a 2 year deal in the summer of 2008, and then he would have had 2 years remaining as a RFA come the summer of 2010 when that contract expired. At that time you sit down and say we from an organizational standpoint want/have to lock you up long-term, what works for you? If long-term doesn't work for him, then you obviously need to consider trading him in order to maximize value, especially for you (the small market organization) since you don't want to end up losing him for lower value. They will get value for him if they deal him between now and the deadline, but his value would have been through the roof in the summer of 2010 as he would have had 2 years of RFA status left, teams would have eaten that up in a second and paid out their ass for it. In the summer of 2010 had they of signed Suter for 8 years, the first 2 would have been his final RFA years and then you have him for 6 years of his UFA status. And when that contract ends, he would be 33 years of age. You've just maximized your assets value and worth by doing this.

Now, I understand sometimes, or many times, that this isn't possible as perhaps the player doesn't want to sign so it works out like this. However, if that is the case, then you can still easily give him contracts through his RFA years that set things up so he can be dealt with solid value rather than dealing him at the trade deadline, 5 months before he is set to be a UFA. In my opinion there comes a point in a players career when he is RFA where as a GM you have to lay it all out on the line and either get him to sign long-term, or explore dealing him when you can maximize his value. At the end of the day this is a business. Funny how players tend to say that, so can management, then.

If Suter had no interest in signing long-term in Nashville and eating up some of his UFA years when he was a RFA in the summer of 2010, or at ANY time for that matter, then as a GM you've got some tough decisions to make. I realize Suter likely wanted to see the direction Nashville would go, and that's fine, you can still give him a deal that does not bring him to UFA status. They could have given him a 3 year deal in the summer of 2008 which would have brought him to last summer, surely he would know by then whether or not he wanted to sign long-term in Nashville or not.


My apologies for this little ranty-kaboo ... but I think teams that set themselves up likes this deserve potentially/likely losing the player. They have the bargaining power and leverage and tossed it out the window, they made their bed, now they can lay in it. It all boils down to protecting your assets for the good of the organization.

Guerzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2012, 10:58 AM
  #63
King Woodballs
**** This Place
 
King Woodballs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Your Mind
Posts: 34,120
vCash: 375
Guerzy you are on a roll today!

King Woodballs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2012, 11:04 AM
  #64
Guerzy
HFBoards Contributor
 
Guerzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Lake
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,200
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Woodballs View Post
Guerzy you are on a roll today!
I really do apologize for the length here. You were all warned by Canes fans that I have it in me to write novels, so here you go.

Seriously though, I'm done now. I'm tired.

Guerzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2012, 11:05 AM
  #65
Huffer
Registered User
 
Huffer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 10,670
vCash: 50
Totally agree Guerzy. Which makes you wonder why Atlanta signed Enstrom to a deal that only basically ate 1 year of UFA.

Huffer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2012, 11:14 AM
  #66
Guerzy
HFBoards Contributor
 
Guerzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Lake
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,200
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huffer View Post
Totally agree Guerzy. Which makes you wonder why Atlanta signed Enstrom to a deal that only basically ate 1 year of UFA.
Answer is simple,



Guerzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2012, 11:15 AM
  #67
Navin RJ
Registered User
 
Navin RJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 153
vCash: 500
Id pay the man 4 year- 15M. with some performance bonuses in there. He's 20 and when he puts on a couple more Lbs he's gonna be a beast.

Navin RJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2012, 11:16 AM
  #68
King Woodballs
**** This Place
 
King Woodballs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Your Mind
Posts: 34,120
vCash: 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Tagli Eddy View Post
Id pay the man 4 year- 15M. with some performance bonuses in there. He's 20 and when he puts on a couple more Lbs he's gonna be a beast.
Cant have performance bonus'

only can for ELC's and 35+ contracts

King Woodballs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2012, 11:18 AM
  #69
Huffer
Registered User
 
Huffer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 10,670
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Tagli Eddy View Post
Id pay the man 4 year- 15M. with some performance bonuses in there. He's 20 and when he puts on a couple more Lbs he's gonna be a beast.
So you would sign him to a deal right up to his UFA year, and put the Jets into possibly the exact situation as Nashville with Suter and New Jersey with Parise?

Huffer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2012, 11:19 AM
  #70
Huffer
Registered User
 
Huffer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 10,670
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guerzy View Post
Answer is simple,
Careful there Guerzy, I think you just made our Atlanta friends smash their monitors.

Huffer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2012, 11:23 AM
  #71
Navin RJ
Registered User
 
Navin RJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 153
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by King Woodballs View Post
Cant have performance bonus'

only can for ELC's and 35+ contracts
I did not know that ...

Navin RJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2012, 11:28 AM
  #72
Navin RJ
Registered User
 
Navin RJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 153
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huffer View Post
So you would sign him to a deal right up to his UFA year, and put the Jets into possibly the exact situation as Nashville with Suter and New Jersey with Parise?
Thats worse case possible... plus Nashville has cap issues and Parise does't seem pumped about playing in NJ anymore. You might not be able to see it now but 4y/15M is a great deal if he turns out like i think he might...

Navin RJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2012, 11:37 AM
  #73
Tintin's Ghost
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Saskatoon
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,129
vCash: 500
When does Kane's RFA status expire? After 7 years in the league or earlier? Sign him up to the year prior to his RFA expiration. Perhaps 10 mill over next three years. I think the variable here is that Kane's value to the Jets is exponentially greater than most snipers b/c the Jets have no consistent scoring whatsoever outside of Kane.

Tintin's Ghost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2012, 12:35 PM
  #74
ps241
It's closing time.
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 13,619
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tintin's Ghost View Post
When does Kane's RFA status expire? After 7 years in the league or earlier? Sign him up to the year prior to his RFA expiration. Perhaps 10 mill over next three years. I think the variable here is that Kane's value to the Jets is exponentially greater than most snipers b/c the Jets have no consistent scoring whatsoever outside of Kane.

As of 2008 the rule is you become an UFA when your are 27 years old or have played seven years in the NHL. The 2008 benchmark remains in place for the life of the agreement.
Under the old system, players did not qualify for the open market until the age of 31.

ps241 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-07-2012, 12:44 PM
  #75
ps241
It's closing time.
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 13,619
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guerzy View Post
And to rant on just a little bit more (), my opinion is Nashville deserves to be in the position they are in with Ryan Suter because they are the ones that made all of this possible. Poor asset management is what it is, and given Suter has been a RFA thus far in his career, it was Nashville that had the bargaining power and leverage. They tossed all of that out the window 4 years ago. Of course there is being loyal, but there is also be stupid and unwise with your assets, and that's what they were, in my honest opinion.

Ryan Suter finished his entry level contract at the end of the 2008 season. Suter then had 3 years NHL experience and 4 years remaining as a RFA (just like Kane does at the end of this season). In all of Nashville's wisdom, what do they do? they sign a 22 turning 23 year old Suter to a 4 year deal, which eats up his 4 remaining RFA years and leaves him dangling free in the wind this summer as a ..................... UFA. Slap me silly and call me stupid, Nashville.

In my opinion, he should have been signed to a 2 year deal in the summer of 2008, and then he would have had 2 years remaining as a RFA come the summer of 2010 when that contract expired. At that time you sit down and say we from an organizational standpoint want/have to lock you up long-term, what works for you? If long-term doesn't work for him, then you obviously need to consider trading him in order to maximize value, especially for you (the small market organization) since you don't want to end up losing him for lower value. They will get value for him if they deal him between now and the deadline, but his value would have been through the roof in the summer of 2010 as he would have had 2 years of RFA status left, teams would have eaten that up in a second and paid out their ass for it. In the summer of 2010 had they of signed Suter for 8 years, the first 2 would have been his final RFA years and then you have him for 6 years of his UFA status. And when that contract ends, he would be 33 years of age. You've just maximized your assets value and worth by doing this.

Now, I understand sometimes, or many times, that this isn't possible as perhaps the player doesn't want to sign so it works out like this. However, if that is the case, then you can still easily give him contracts through his RFA years that set things up so he can be dealt with solid value rather than dealing him at the trade deadline, 5 months before he is set to be a UFA. In my opinion there comes a point in a players career when he is RFA where as a GM you have to lay it all out on the line and either get him to sign long-term, or explore dealing him when you can maximize his value. At the end of the day this is a business. Funny how players tend to say that, so can management, then.

If Suter had no interest in signing long-term in Nashville and eating up some of his UFA years when he was a RFA in the summer of 2010, or at ANY time for that matter, then as a GM you've got some tough decisions to make. I realize Suter likely wanted to see the direction Nashville would go, and that's fine, you can still give him a deal that does not bring him to UFA status. They could have given him a 3 year deal in the summer of 2008 which would have brought him to last summer, surely he would know by then whether or not he wanted to sign long-term in Nashville or not.


My apologies for this little ranty-kaboo ... but I think teams that set themselves up likes this deserve potentially/likely losing the player. They have the bargaining power and leverage and tossed it out the window, they made their bed, now they can lay in it. It all boils down to protecting your assets for the good of the organization.
great post again and you are on a roll today Guerzy

If things continue to progress the way they have so far this year the bolded part above is what I would like to see the Jets do with Bogosian in the summer of 2013 when coincidentally Zach will have two years left as an RFA

normally I don't like the long term deals but there are a few exceptions (think Toews in Chicago) and I would love have Zack here through the prime of his career especially if his game continues to progress the next two seasons like I think it will.

ps241 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 04:27 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.