HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Islanders
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Gomez denies NYI rumors

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-07-2012, 10:34 AM
  #26
redbull
springtime hockey!
 
redbull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,518
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowitzki View Post
Would Montreal do this trade?

Gomez + Subban for Reasoner

It's kind of the same what Nashville and Toronto did (Franson, Lombardi).
Wang/Snow don't take on contracts unless it's to reach the cap floor.

I've made the point many times that those Burke-like deals (also got Lupul/Gardiner in similar moves) are brilliant moves but requires the willingness to take on money and risk. Snow won't take on money but will take WAIVER RISKS or AHL risks (Moulson, Mauldin, Wallace, Thompson, Romano, Frischmon, Grabner, Schremp - there are more) - some work, some don't.

These are the moves our NYI are likely to make. (Based on history)

redbull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 01:41 PM
  #27
periferal
Registered User
 
periferal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moosie View Post
Yes, they are, but I doubt the "buyouts as cap-filler" rule is eliminated. There seems to be more worry that big ticket teams like Toronto and the Rangers would buyout any and all bad contracts and not be penalized. There aren't too many owners like Wang, who sign players to ridiculously long contracts and then use the buyouts to meet the cap floor. Thank God. Maybe the NHL could add a clause saying that buyouts count against the top of the cap but not the bottom? The Wang Clause. Evil curmudgeon...

Buyouts should absolutely NOT count towards the cap - The original entire salary you sign a player to should. If big boys like the rags want to sign a Gomez and Drury to 7+ million/year contracts...Fantastic, but they should be held to them 100% until the contract is done or they are traded (Gainey you IDIOT!!!!).

Right now we should be held 100% to Yashin's contract the way Chicago should be to Huet's garbage deal. In the day and age where teams are throwing around money like it grows on trees, it'd be nice to have them have pause about giving out such insane, and lengthy, contracts.

And can you imagine if there was no cap at all? The NHL has evolved to the point where the big market teams would give 12+ million to players leaving smaller markets to whittle in the dust.

periferal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 01:51 PM
  #28
blitzkriegs
Registered User
 
blitzkriegs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Beach & Mtn & Island
Posts: 9,648
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by periferal View Post
I can only hope that the next CBA eliminates ALL cap circumvention (both to the cap and cap floor). That would paint Wang into a corner and I would hope that he'd sell.

Hope.
Wang-o-nomics is not circumvention. It's perfectly in line with the CBA. Whether it's a good PR move to your player recruitment of quality players...is another story.

The PA has a stake in this. For the over 35er it stopped the Brett Hull/Theo retirement contracts, but created the Doug Weight version. However, the Weight version is NOT cash salary, which is what he PA wants on the books since most over 35er bonuses are not achievable. It has kept some aging vets in the league, which was the bread/butter of the pre-lockout NHL, but in the 'new' NHL the shift is now on the younger guys so the impact has been minimized. Longer term deals are moving into and right past the 35er clause.

For the rookies, well, that's where the PA needs to step in and protect the development of their players since the league is moving towards the 2nd contract as the money contract. For all the Crosby's there's 10-15 other guys that are just not ready. The Crosbys will get their money naturally, the rest need the development time prior to the NHL to get their payday.

blitzkriegs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 01:58 PM
  #29
Original Rob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowitzki View Post
Would Montreal do this trade?Gomez + Subban for Reasoner

It's kind of the same what Nashville and Toronto did (Franson, Lombardi).
Nope

Original Rob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 06:27 PM
  #30
Chapin Landvogt
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 12,403
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by redbull View Post
Wang/Snow don't take on contracts unless it's to reach the cap floor.

I've made the point many times that those Burke-like deals (also got Lupul/Gardiner in similar moves) are brilliant moves but requires the willingness to take on money and risk. Snow won't take on money but will take WAIVER RISKS or AHL risks (Moulson, Mauldin, Wallace, Thompson, Romano, Frischmon, Grabner, Schremp - there are more) - some work, some don't.

These are the moves our NYI are likely to make. (Based on history)
I've been really surprised that Snow has made absolutely NO waiver wire acquisitions this year.

But like you wrote, they didn't need to from a cap perspective this year.

Sure wish Grant Clitsome were on the blueline right now.

Chapin Landvogt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 06:49 PM
  #31
blitzkriegs
Registered User
 
blitzkriegs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Beach & Mtn & Island
Posts: 9,648
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chapin Landvogt View Post
I've been really surprised that Snow has made absolutely NO waiver wire acquisitions this year.

But like you wrote, they didn't need to from a cap perspective this year.

Sure wish Grant Clitsome were on the blueline right now.
But he disposed of salary each season as soon it became legit to do: Thompson, Wiz, Comeau, etc. Wang doesn't want any more on the books than he has to.

blitzkriegs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 07:54 PM
  #32
LeapOnOver
Registered User
 
LeapOnOver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Iskan, S. Korea
Country: South Korea
Posts: 3,504
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=Law;45631667]He also states he operates under no financial constraints.

Operating under no financial constraints means that if Snow sees a deal good for the team he will make it without worrying if there is money in the coughers for it.

That does not, however, eliminate his own strategy for what he looks for in deals and what he thinks is or is not a good deal. A does not equal B. Honestly you should have not quoted me because what you are saying is a bit irrelevant to my point.

LeapOnOver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 10:14 PM
  #33
ferrisUML
Registered User
 
ferrisUML's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkriegs View Post
But he disposed of salary each season as soon it became legit to do: Thompson, Wiz, Comeau, etc. Wang doesn't want any more on the books than he has to.
That's not even true. We could've dumped those players before the season even began and still been cap compliant. I'm not saying that moves aren't made to dump salary, but I fail to see a move made (even with the salary dump) that didn't in some way make us a better team.

We weren't giving Wiz 5.5/per and we weren't near the playoffs, so it was a smart move to get an asset back AND we started crushing it shortly after he left. Comeau, really? Ullstrom is 10x the player Comeau will ever even wish to be. And Thompson? Really? A league minimum 4th liner is not exactly a supporting argument to your point.

ferrisUML is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 10:46 PM
  #34
Law
Registered User
 
Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Miami, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 7,213
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by leaponover View Post
I didn't need confirmation of this. I tried to respond in the other thread but it was closed. Snow has stated time and again, and this is fact, that if he is going to take an overpaid player's salary off someone's hands he expects to also be reimbursed in prospects or picks. He has said in this new NHL with the way salaries are that's his game plan. Now you can argue that Rolston is an example against this but definitely not as bad as a straight Gomez trade would have been.

I know Snow is not the only GM who operates this way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Law View Post
He also states he operates under no financial constraints.
Quote:
Originally Posted by leaponover View Post
Operating under no financial constraints means that if Snow sees a deal good for the team he will make it without worrying if there is money in the coughers for it.

That does not, however, eliminate his own strategy for what he looks for in deals and what he thinks is or is not a good deal. A does not equal B. Honestly you should have not quoted me because what you are saying is a bit irrelevant to my point.
'A' is hardly separate from 'B'. I was merely pointing out that Garth says a lot of things with a straight face. Can't really blame him, might be bad for his career trajectory to sit in front of a microphone and tell reporters how his FA strategy is contingent upon how many soda cans he can return for the $0.05 recycling fee prior to July 1st.

As for Garth not operating under 'financial constraints' -- which I can only assume is what you meant by the "...if Snow sees a deal good for the team he will make it without worrying if there is money in the coughers for it" -- can't imagine Garth is purposely spending to the cap floor because he just hasn't found the right deal yet. If he is, we're even more screwed that I originally thought.


Law is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 11:34 PM
  #35
blitzkriegs
Registered User
 
blitzkriegs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Beach & Mtn & Island
Posts: 9,648
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferrisUML View Post
That's not even true. We could've dumped those players before the season even began and still been cap compliant. I'm not saying that moves aren't made to dump salary, but I fail to see a move made (even with the salary dump) that didn't in some way make us a better team.

We weren't giving Wiz 5.5/per and we weren't near the playoffs, so it was a smart move to get an asset back AND we started crushing it shortly after he left. Comeau, really? Ullstrom is 10x the player Comeau will ever even wish to be. And Thompson? Really? A league minimum 4th liner is not exactly a supporting argument to your point.
Once it's clear to Wang the team is not competitive, he dumps salary - even early in the season. You think the below is not a pattern of dumping salary on an annual basis by waivers/trades once it's clear the Isles stink and Wang met his cap obligations?

09/10 Season: Witt (Feb 2010)
10/11 Season: Wiz (Dec 2010)
10/11 Season: Thompson (Jan 2011)
11/12 Season: Comeau (Nov 2011), Rolston/Motts (Feb 2012)

blitzkriegs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2012, 11:57 PM
  #36
Richie Daggers Crime
Fistie Daggers Crime
 
Richie Daggers Crime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYI fan in Atl
Posts: 9,748
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by leaponover View Post
worrying if there is money in the coughers for it.
This is almost as good as "testing your metal".

Richie Daggers Crime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2012, 07:57 AM
  #37
ferrisUML
Registered User
 
ferrisUML's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkriegs View Post
Once it's clear to Wang the team is not competitive, he dumps salary - even early in the season. You think the below is not a pattern of dumping salary on an annual basis by waivers/trades once it's clear the Isles stink and Wang met his cap obligations?

09/10 Season: Witt (Feb 2010)
10/11 Season: Wiz (Dec 2010)
10/11 Season: Thompson (Jan 2011)
11/12 Season: Comeau (Nov 2011), Rolston/Motts (Feb 2012)
Isn't that what most teams that are out of the playoff picture do? Also, your argument ignores that we traded for Wiz, taking on his salary, even while being cap compliant.

EDIT:
Also, leaving salary aside, were any of those a bad move? If I remeber, Witt sucked, Wiz didn't fit and was a pending FA that got a ridiculous contract, Thompson is a 4th liner, Comeau = Kvasha, and Rolston had members of this board willing to drive him to Boston. Point is, each of those move we good in-and-of-themselves irrespective of any financial releif that was gained.


Last edited by ferrisUML: 03-08-2012 at 09:23 AM.
ferrisUML is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2012, 09:23 AM
  #38
OlTimeHockey
Registered User
 
OlTimeHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: home
Country: China
Posts: 16,091
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richie Daggers Crime View Post
This is almost as good as "testing your metal".
nice. I like the cut of your Gibb.

OlTimeHockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2012, 10:41 AM
  #39
JKP
Registered User
 
JKP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OlTimeHockey View Post
nice. I like the cut of your Gibb.
Kind of like trying to cut the mustard...

I agree with leaponover that Snow can make a deal if thinks it adds value. I also agree with Blitz that he dumps deadweight salary if they're out. But I think that is Snow's own personal directive more than Wangs (although, clearly Wang is on a budget given the arena situation).

I actually think Snow is a pretty shrewd money manager. I've heard him say a few times that he considers cap space to be an asset (which means the Isles have the Sydney Crosby of cap space).

He's also following the Cleveland Indians model of the early-mid 90s - sign/ lockup your young emerging talent early to dollar friendly deals in exchange for term for the kid.

For example, Frans and AMac are currently about the best deals out there in terms of dollars for value. That changes when Frans' new deal kicks in, but at 550-600k, AMac is a pretty good deal.

I also like that Snow is a "cap generation" GM. He never existed in the Yeehaw! days of salary management. He only knows the cap and gets it. He doesn't make mistakes and he hasn't done any real albatross deals (cap wise).

He pursues the UFAs he wants at a price he's willing to pay, but he go stupid overboard (Smyth, Errhof). And best of all, he won't then go in a panic looking to sign whatever he can at overpriced $$s and term (hello Florida and Buffalo summer of 2011) just to appear to be doing something.

Clearly Wang is on a budget. Just as clearly, I think Snow manages the dollars smartly:
- If there is some form of rollback of the cap (i.e., the players share goes down to 50% from 57%), he'll be in good shape to pick up some deals.
- He's got room to lock in the promising youth long term as they develop over the next few years while still having flexibility to pick up some major cost assets in a trade or ufa.
- He won't overpay (maybe can't, but I believe won't) in term or $$s.

Personally, I like the approach. It takes longer, but in the end it should build us a better long-term product.

I think it's very similar to how Det operates. They don't overpay, they lock up core homegrown talent at good prices. Det., of course, has had a much better head start and more core assets to work with, but I think we're ultimately heading toward their model.

JKP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2012, 10:51 AM
  #40
2LeftSkates
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 484
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKP View Post
Kind of like trying to cut the mustard...
Clearly Wang is on a budget. Just as clearly, I think Snow manages the dollars smartly:
- If there is some form of rollback of the cap (i.e., the players share goes down to 50% from 57%), he'll be in good shape to pick up some deals.
- He's got room to lock in the promising youth long term as they develop over the next few years while still having flexibility to pick up some major cost assets in a trade or ufa.
- He won't overpay (maybe can't, but I believe won't) in term or $$s.

Personally, I like the approach. It takes longer, but in the end it should build us a better long-term product.

I think it's very similar to how Det operates. They don't overpay, they lock up core homegrown talent at good prices. Det., of course, has had a much better head start and more core assets to work with, but I think we're ultimately heading toward their model.
It takes longer? At this rate, we will need a new first line center by the time we acquire our second line center. In case you never heard it before:
THIS IS NOT A REBUILD!

2LeftSkates is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2012, 11:51 AM
  #41
JKP
Registered User
 
JKP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2LeftSkates View Post
It takes longer? At this rate, we will need a new first line center by the time we acquire our second line center. In case you never heard it before:
THIS IS NOT A REBUILD!
He's tried to accelerate with some UFAs and couldn't land them. I don't think he's been willing to start trading assets as he's been rebuilding the stockpile of them. Those are pretty much the only two accelerants available. You don't undo 20 years of neglect quickly unless you luck into two or three Tavares'. And even Edmonton is struggling with their youth movement.

If you want to go back to moderately competitive teams that squeak into the playoffs and go out in the first round, I'm sure that would be an easier path and take less time. Patience. We're getting closer.

JKP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2012, 11:51 AM
  #42
A Pointed Stick
W.W.J.C.D?
 
A Pointed Stick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 9,689
vCash: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKP View Post
Kind of like trying to cut the mustard...

I agree with leaponover that Snow can make a deal if thinks it adds value. I also agree with Blitz that he dumps deadweight salary if they're out. But I think that is Snow's own personal directive more than Wangs (although, clearly Wang is on a budget given the arena situation).

I actually think Snow is a pretty shrewd money manager. I've heard him say a few times that he considers cap space to be an asset (which means the Isles have the Sydney Crosby of cap space).

He's also following the Cleveland Indians model of the early-mid 90s - sign/ lockup your young emerging talent early to dollar friendly deals in exchange for term for the kid.

For example, Frans and AMac are currently about the best deals out there in terms of dollars for value. That changes when Frans' new deal kicks in, but at 550-600k, AMac is a pretty good deal.

I also like that Snow is a "cap generation" GM. He never existed in the Yeehaw! days of salary management. He only knows the cap and gets it. He doesn't make mistakes and he hasn't done any real albatross deals (cap wise).

He pursues the UFAs he wants at a price he's willing to pay, but he go stupid overboard (Smyth, Errhof). And best of all, he won't then go in a panic looking to sign whatever he can at overpriced $$s and term (hello Florida and Buffalo summer of 2011) just to appear to be doing something.

Clearly Wang is on a budget. Just as clearly, I think Snow manages the dollars smartly:
- If there is some form of rollback of the cap (i.e., the players share goes down to 50% from 57%), he'll be in good shape to pick up some deals.
- He's got room to lock in the promising youth long term as they develop over the next few years while still having flexibility to pick up some major cost assets in a trade or ufa.
- He won't overpay (maybe can't, but I believe won't) in term or $$s.

Personally, I like the approach. It takes longer, but in the end it should build us a better long-term product.

I think it's very similar to how Det operates. They don't overpay, they lock up core homegrown talent at good prices. Det., of course, has had a much better head start and more core assets to work with, but I think we're ultimately heading toward their model.
I remember when I used to believe that. Then I faced the evidence of the early season disasters over the last few seasons when adding to the roster was necessary to repair early unforseen injuries, slumps, etc., and when development of the kids required at least a handful of decent vets to provide a stable environment on the ice. The veteran filler has come with the requirement of not going over the floor, or being used strictly to provide filler to get to the floor. IMO that is what most people are looking at when they give up on the owner. If he wants to grow this team right he'd spend more, not cap ceiling, but more and definitely over the cap floor on players who would help the growing core. Clearly he has not. The best vet by a long talent gap above the next one was Streit, and he was a gamble. The rest have been pretty pathetic. This isn't the Detroit model. This is the, "save money at all costs while locking the cheap kids in to long term contracts due to escalate after a new buyer picks up the team in '15 if I need to sell model." I am surprised to see you trying to sell it as anything else, most of all some long term plan by a GM wanting to develop a good young team the best way. Even the early Islander model included good vets to fill in around the kids with to help them. Our vets serve one purpose... Get the team to the floor so Wang avoids a fine for violating the cba with too low of a salary.

A Pointed Stick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2012, 11:52 PM
  #43
Seph
Registered User
 
Seph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oregon
Country: South Korea
Posts: 16,093
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Seph
Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzkriegs View Post
Once it's clear to Wang the team is not competitive, he dumps salary - even early in the season. You think the below is not a pattern of dumping salary on an annual basis by waivers/trades once it's clear the Isles stink and Wang met his cap obligations?

09/10 Season: Witt (Feb 2010)
10/11 Season: Wiz (Dec 2010)
10/11 Season: Thompson (Jan 2011)
11/12 Season: Comeau (Nov 2011), Rolston/Motts (Feb 2012)
Witt was sent down to the minors in the 2009/10 season, and since he was on a one way contract, Wang had to pay him the same salary either way. In fact, one could argue that Wang paid more by having Witt in the minors, since a guy on a two way contact could've been sent/kept down in the AHL instead of Witt.

Thompson was waived because someone had to be waived. Sutton had been suspended, and we were carrying 2 forwards (Tambellini and Thompson) and a goalie (rotating) as healthy scratches. A defenseman needed to come up, and if Sutton was taken off the active roster it doesn't count as a game of suspension served. So that means someone had to be waived or we play with 5 dmen. Considering that at the time, we had Tavares, Nielsen, Schremp, Bailley and Weight, waiving the center over the winger made sense at the time. Thompson made as little or less than anyone, so though you can argue he wasn't the right choice, you can't really argue that him being waived saved the team any more money than any other option available at the time.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe for an instant that Snow is operating with an open check book, but I think it's pretty hard to claim these two moves were salary motivated.

Seph 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 06:53 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.