HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > San Jose Sharks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Sharks talking with Couture on extension

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-16-2013, 09:30 PM
  #26
ilikebigjoe
Registered User
 
ilikebigjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 755
vCash: 500
doesnt SJ not sign players to contracts longer than 5 years as per team rule?

ilikebigjoe is offline  
Old
06-16-2013, 09:36 PM
  #27
Led Zappa
Tomorrow Today!
 
Led Zappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Country: Scotland
Posts: 38,263
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilikebigjoe View Post
doesnt SJ not sign players to contracts longer than 5 years as per team rule?
Doug has done 6. There is a rich majority owner now so who knows.

__________________

It disappoints me that you can write a lyric very flippantly—and not a particularly good lyric—and it can mean so much to so many people. That's disillusioning for a writer - George Michael, Careless Whisper
Led Zappa is offline  
Old
06-16-2013, 09:38 PM
  #28
sr228
Registered User
 
sr228's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,295
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilikebigjoe View Post
doesnt SJ not sign players to contracts longer than 5 years as per team rule?
It's not a team rule, it's DW's preference. Given Couture's age I'd imagine he'll likely get more then 5 years.

sr228 is offline  
Old
06-16-2013, 09:59 PM
  #29
magic school bus
***********
 
magic school bus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: San Jose, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 17,238
vCash: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Great 88 View Post
8 years 80 million
^ DW's opening offer

magic school bus is offline  
Old
06-16-2013, 10:13 PM
  #30
Episkey
Nitrox
 
Episkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 1,904
vCash: 976
I agree we need to lock him up for at least 5 years. 5.25 mil would be my guess. Probably will take a discount.

Episkey is online now  
Old
06-16-2013, 10:27 PM
  #31
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 19,187
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stalockrox View Post
It's not a team rule, it's DW's preference. Given Couture's age I'd imagine he'll likely get more then 5 years.
I imagine that was partially ownership too, Plattner likely wants his star locked up as long as possible.

hockeyball is offline  
Old
06-16-2013, 11:38 PM
  #32
Arrch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: NorCal
Country: United States
Posts: 4,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squeeven View Post
You think so? Even with the new cap? Wouldn't players who are signing and re-signing have to adjust accordingly?
It has also been widely speculated that he took a discount for these last two years so that he could cash in when DW has more flexibility with the cap.

Arrch is online now  
Old
06-16-2013, 11:55 PM
  #33
Audio Outlaw
Jaded Sharks Fan
 
Audio Outlaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Bay Area, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,515
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Can HaZ Trainz View Post
Good to hear. Gotta wonder if it means a vet could be on the way out though.
Hopefully Boyle while he still has value. Trade Boyle for a RW and send Burns back to Defense.

Audio Outlaw is offline  
Old
06-17-2013, 12:31 AM
  #34
SoftDumpInTheCorner
Registered User
 
SoftDumpInTheCorner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Man Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 234
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Channing Tatum View Post
looks like DW saw kurz list and started at no. 1
No because Havlat might be bought out before the free agency period starts. I'm pretty sure Couture cant sign any new deal until free agency begins.

SoftDumpInTheCorner is offline  
Old
06-17-2013, 01:26 AM
  #35
SCinSJ
Sith Lord Burns
 
SCinSJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Rafael, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,429
vCash: 500
My guess.

5 years 30m

SCinSJ is offline  
Old
06-17-2013, 01:26 AM
  #36
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoftDumpInTheCorner View Post
No because Havlat might be bought out before the free agency period starts. I'm pretty sure Couture cant sign any new deal until free agency begins.
Malkin signed his deal...

OrrNumber4 is offline  
Old
06-17-2013, 01:31 AM
  #37
TheJuxtaposer
#Shorks
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 29,716
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrNumber4 View Post
Malkin signed his deal...
He hasn't officially signed it, but he's "agreed to terms" with Pittsburgh, so it's as good as signing. It's all in name as of this moment. That usually doesn't happen, only is so with Malkin because he's Malkin.

TheJuxtaposer is offline  
Old
06-17-2013, 09:25 AM
  #38
sr228
Registered User
 
sr228's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,295
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
I imagine that was partially ownership too, Plattner likely wants his star locked up as long as possible.
I don't. DW's reasons for signing players to reasonable term are very good ones. Had he every gone to the BOG and said he wanted to lock up a player for 7, 8, 9 years I'd bet they would've said OK but it's just not how he does things.

I also don't at all agree with the sentiment arund here (by some) about Plattner...if he's as good of a business man as everyone seems to believe, he'll keep his nose outta the day to day hockey ops of the team. He either has complete trust in DW to do his job or he doesn't and considering DW is still the GM (and Platter has said he trusts him) he's going to let him do his job the way he's always done his job.

Couture getting locked up for 5+ years is simply a smart move - the last time (under DW) that they had a player around his age and talent level that was going to be an RFA was Michalek and DW signed him for 6 years.

Other players that have maybe deserved more term were older like Vlasic, Burns. I bet DW is kicking himself for not giving Pavelski a longer term deal.

sr228 is offline  
Old
06-17-2013, 10:14 AM
  #39
LeeIFBB
Teflon Doug
 
LeeIFBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Tanning Bed
Posts: 1,628
vCash: 500
I'd think the negotiations are starting around a 5.5 cap hit, maybe higher.

LeeIFBB is offline  
Old
06-17-2013, 11:13 AM
  #40
do0glas
Registered User
 
do0glas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,843
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stalockrox View Post
I don't. DW's reasons for signing players to reasonable term are very good ones. Had he every gone to the BOG and said he wanted to lock up a player for 7, 8, 9 years I'd bet they would've said OK but it's just not how he does things.

I also don't at all agree with the sentiment arund here (by some) about Plattner...if he's as good of a business man as everyone seems to believe, he'll keep his nose outta the day to day hockey ops of the team. He either has complete trust in DW to do his job or he doesn't and considering DW is still the GM (and Platter has said he trusts him) he's going to let him do his job the way he's always done his job.

Couture getting locked up for 5+ years is simply a smart move - the last time (under DW) that they had a player around his age and talent level that was going to be an RFA was Michalek and DW signed him for 6 years.

Other players that have maybe deserved more term were older like Vlasic, Burns. I bet DW is kicking himself for not giving Pavelski a longer term deal.
yup, the conjecture around how the owner will act is astounding.

do0glas is offline  
Old
06-17-2013, 11:35 AM
  #41
Mister Wedge
OnTheWinglesOfLove
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 82
vCash: 500
Not sure why Juicy would sign for anything less than 6 per, unless it was a shortened, 3 yr deal which would lead him to a huge paycheck as a 27 year old FA. My instincts tell me he's asking in the ballpark of 6.5 mil per season. Pretty surprised some people are thinking he signs south of 5.5 per.

Mister Wedge is offline  
Old
06-17-2013, 11:38 AM
  #42
FeedingFrenzy
Registered User
 
FeedingFrenzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,670
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by do0glas View Post
yup, the conjecture around how the owner will act is astounding.
+2..

FeedingFrenzy is offline  
Old
06-17-2013, 11:45 AM
  #43
FeedingFrenzy
Registered User
 
FeedingFrenzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,670
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Wedge View Post
Not sure why Juicy would sign for anything less than 6 per, unless it was a shortened, 3 yr deal which would lead him to a huge paycheck as a 27 year old FA. My instincts tell me he's asking in the ballpark of 6.5 mil per season. Pretty surprised some people are thinking he signs south of 5.5 per.
he only gets north of 6mil if he signs for max years, maybe 8yrs/52mil.. 5-5.5mil for 5 years seems about right for this contract and DW's propensity for not giving out lonnnng deals..

FeedingFrenzy is offline  
Old
06-17-2013, 12:26 PM
  #44
Fistfullofbeer
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Fistfullofbeer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Whidbey Island, WA
Country: India
Posts: 9,752
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Wedge View Post
Not sure why Juicy would sign for anything less than 6 per, unless it was a shortened, 3 yr deal which would lead him to a huge paycheck as a 27 year old FA. My instincts tell me he's asking in the ballpark of 6.5 mil per season. Pretty surprised some people are thinking he signs south of 5.5 per.
I see him making around Eberle/Hall money (6M AAV) but would not be surprised if he gets 6.5M. He is not as flashy as those two but he is more rounded player and smarter too.

__________________
What?! Look, he thinks he's people!
Fistfullofbeer is offline  
Old
06-17-2013, 12:41 PM
  #45
MarleauApologist
#FireDougWilson
 
MarleauApologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 7,687
vCash: 500
I expect around 5 years 25 million. He's a team playa.

MarleauApologist is offline  
Old
06-17-2013, 12:48 PM
  #46
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 19,187
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by do0glas View Post
yup, the conjecture around how the owner will act is astounding.
Either way you are making an assumption. You either assume he will change nothing, or he will change something. Either way you are assuming something. I think it's more likely he changes things simply because he decided to buy out the other owners all of the sudden, and it seems like in a fairly aggressive fashion. He didn't do that just to say he owned a hockey team, he did that because he clearly didn't like something about how the team was being operated and wanted more control.

Mostly I'm making conclusions based upon what I would do in that situation. If I just bought a franchise that is aging and I had billions of dollars I would want to lock up the most critical young piece on the team as long as possible.

I expect a $5.5-6m 7-8 year deal.

hockeyball is offline  
Old
06-17-2013, 12:50 PM
  #47
HOOCH2173
That HOOCH is Crazy!
 
HOOCH2173's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Fullerton
Country: United States
Posts: 4,948
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Great 88 View Post
I expect around 5 years 25 million. He's a team playa.
He's a Ping Pong Playa!


HOOCH2173 is offline  
Old
06-17-2013, 01:10 PM
  #48
do0glas
Registered User
 
do0glas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,843
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
Either way you are making an assumption. You either assume he will change nothing, or he will change something. Either way you are assuming something. I think it's more likely he changes things simply because he decided to buy out the other owners all of the sudden, and it seems like in a fairly aggressive fashion. He didn't do that just to say he owned a hockey team, he did that because he clearly didn't like something about how the team was being operated and wanted more control.
Mostly I'm making conclusions based upon what I would do in that situation. If I just bought a franchise that is aging and I had billions of dollars I would want to lock up the most critical young piece on the team as long as possible.

I expect a $5.5-6m 7-8 year deal.
WOW. huge jump here. this is what im talking about. you could argue hes already re-organized the front office and kept the coaching staff on. so hockey decisions will probably be left to hockey people. (see, i can do it too)

i do agree that there is assumptions on both sides, but when i say "conjecture" im talking about statements like the one i bolded.

do0glas is offline  
Old
06-17-2013, 01:27 PM
  #49
Gilligans Island
Registered User
 
Gilligans Island's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: SF/Bay Area
Posts: 9,034
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by do0glas View Post
WOW. huge jump here. this is what im talking about. you could argue hes already re-organized the front office and kept the coaching staff on. so hockey decisions will probably be left to hockey people. (see, i can do it too)

i do agree that there is assumptions on both sides, but when i say "conjecture" im talking about statements like the one i bolded.
Agree... It'd be nice if there was less mind reading going. I love to speculate about the Sharks as much as you all but sometimes, some posters take it to the extreme.

Gilligans Island is online now  
Old
06-17-2013, 01:33 PM
  #50
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 19,187
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by do0glas View Post
WOW. huge jump here. this is what im talking about. you could argue hes already re-organized the front office and kept the coaching staff on. so hockey decisions will probably be left to hockey people. (see, i can do it too)

i do agree that there is assumptions on both sides, but when i say "conjecture" im talking about statements like the one i bolded.
I don't see either one as more or less of an assumption, mine is just specific and I laid out my logic, you did not. If all he wanted to do was re-organize the front office... well let's just say that seems kind of an underwhelming privilege to spend 10's or 100's of millions of dollars on... but I guess it's possible, I just see it as pretty unlikely. A jump as you might say.

Point is, what you see as a huge assumption I see as a logical deduction based on available evidence.

He bought the team, he did so in an aggressive manner (it seems as if several of the owners were not looking to sell... though we don't know how it all unfolded). He made statements that he does not see the team ever making money. Those things to me, plus basic human psychology, equal he has plans for the team that involve significant changes that he could not make while the team had multiple owners.

hockeyball is offline  
Closed Thread

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 12:56 PM.

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.