HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Muckler lays down gauntlet with Havlat

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-09-2003, 07:55 AM
  #51
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruinsGirl
Last year many of you said that Havlat is better player than Samsonov...well Samsonov "finally" agreed for 3.5(probably 3.6) + bonuses...

IMHO (because I still like Sammy more than Havlat but also respect Havlat very much) his salary should be at least 2.5 mil anything less than 2 mil would be super lowballing.

I would sign him before signing Smolinski for sure!
Samsonov has arbitration rights, Havlat doesn't. That's why Samsonov makes more then Havlat, not because he is better then Havlat.

His salary is whatever the Senators decide to offer him. He doesn't have any other viable options.

Why would you sign Havlat before Smolinski? Smolinski could have been an unrestricted free agent. He could have gone elsewhere. Havlat can't go anywhere else in the NHL.

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
10-09-2003, 08:03 AM
  #52
BruinsGirl
Registered User
 
BruinsGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bruinsville, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,159
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDaddyMeatWhistle
Samsonov has arbitration rights, Havlat doesn't. That's why Samsonov makes more then Havlat, not because he is better then Havlat.

His salary is whatever the Senators decide to offer him. He doesn't have any other viable options.

Why would you sign Havlat before Smolinski? Smolinski could have been an unrestricted free agent. He could have gone elsewhere. Havlat can't go anywhere else in the NHL.

Samsonov's previous contract was $$1.5 - 1.8 - 2.5.

BruinsGirl is offline  
Old
10-09-2003, 08:16 AM
  #53
SensGod
Registered User
 
SensGod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Scotia Bank Place
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,430
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to SensGod
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruinsGirl
Samsonov's previous contract was $$1.5 - 1.8 - 2.5.
See...this I could stomach...very similar to Hossa's...

1.5, 1.8, 2.2, 2.8 would be a good contract I think...

SensGod is offline  
Old
10-09-2003, 08:22 AM
  #54
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruinsGirl
Samsonov's previous contract was $$1.5 - 1.8 - 2.5.
So what? Samsonov made more in the first year because he gave up a year of arbitration. The Bruins wouldn't have given him a two year deal for $1.5 -$1.8. They knew that they were getting Samsonov at a discount in the third year.

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
10-09-2003, 08:50 AM
  #55
V for Voodoo
Registered User
 
V for Voodoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Boom Shaka-Laka.
Country: Nepal
Posts: 5,004
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to V for Voodoo Send a message via MSN to V for Voodoo
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruinsGirl
Samsonov's previous contract was $$1.5 - 1.8 - 2.5.
When you consider that the Senators current offer is only 150k off that, and that its a ONE year deal that doesnt stretch into over his arbitration years, the Sens offer of 1.35 for 1yr is a better deal than what Samsonov got.

V for Voodoo is online now  
Old
10-09-2003, 09:55 AM
  #56
Other Dave
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New and improved in TO
Posts: 2,025
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian
No, that is the minimum amount needed to qualify him. The market value would be what the market is willing to pay for him.
Correct, and according to the legally negotiated CBA, the 'market' in this case consists of the Ottawa Senators full stop. No 'collusion' is involved.

Other Dave

Other Dave is offline  
Old
10-09-2003, 09:55 AM
  #57
Disco Volante
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: 2nd to FloydianSlip
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,563
vCash: 500
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp...80&hubName=nhl


Disco Volante is offline  
Old
10-09-2003, 10:14 AM
  #58
Habnot
 
Habnot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,446
vCash: 500
Playing hardball with someone with no leverage does not take alot of balls. The 1.3 mill offer is ludicrous. The Sens better hope that the new CBA will have a hard cap or they might of squandered the best chance to win the Cup.

How do you think the vets are going to interprit the Sens management willingness to do everything possible to win. for 500K they lose one of their premier players. This is going to have a trickle down effect in the dressing room for this year and a lasting effect for others once their contracts come up.

Habnot is offline  
Old
10-09-2003, 10:17 AM
  #59
SensGod
Registered User
 
SensGod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Scotia Bank Place
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,430
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to SensGod
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habnot
Playing hardball with someone with no leverage does not take alot of balls. The 1.3 mill offer is ludicrous. The Sens better hope that the new CBA will have a hard cap or they might of squandered the best chance to win the Cup.

How do you think the vets are going to interprit the Sens management willingness to do everything possible to win. for 500K they lose one of their premier players. This is going to have a trickle down effect in the dressing room for this year and a lasting effect for others once their contracts come up.
yeah it will have a trickledown effect...

Imagine if the Sens gave havlat 2.4 million coming right off his rookie contract...IMAGINE what they'd have to give Spezza in two years?!?!?!?!.

It didn't seem to be a big issue 2 years ago when Hossa got 1.5 million his first year after his rookie contract...so what's the big stink this time?

The Devils seem to be doing pretty well playing hard ball with their players salaries...

SensGod is offline  
Old
10-09-2003, 11:40 AM
  #60
Darth Vitale
Moderator
Lesshaus > Morehaus
 
Darth Vitale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Fangorn
Country: United States
Posts: 25,324
vCash: 500
I admire Sens management for making an earnest effort to stay within their budget and handle things in a pragmatic way, but their tactics were lousy. They might as well have made a statement saying "sign here or go stand in the corner Marty". What self-respecting player is going to buy into that kind of treatment?

If you're a professional, you don't make your ultimatums in that way. That said, I think the correct amount this kid is owed is close to Havlat's number than Muckler's. They should just split the difference and call it a wash. It's a real shame if Havlat plays out the year in the Czech Republic.

Darth Vitale is offline  
Old
10-09-2003, 01:38 PM
  #61
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 28,525
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Other Dave
Correct, and according to the legally negotiated CBA, the 'market' in this case consists of the Ottawa Senators full stop. No 'collusion' is involved.

Other Dave
DUH! According to the CBA, every other team has the right to offer a RFA a contract and if accepted have to offer picks as compensation. So the market for a RFA should be 30 teams and Havlat would get paid much more than the Sens are offering him. Only through collusion is it one team. Or are you suggesting that according to the legally negotiated CBA no other team has the right to offer Havlat a contract today if they wanted?

Do you seriously think Muckler would keep doing that silly posturing if he knew Havlat could go anywhere else? He would be standing there with the longest nose you ever saw.

Freudian is offline  
Old
10-09-2003, 05:57 PM
  #62
Egil
Registered User
 
Egil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,832
vCash: 500
If a RFA ONLY had the matching right, you would be correct, but that is not the case. The compensation in draft picks is worth ALOT. Would you trade 5 first round picks for Cujo? or Weight? or any other UFA who signed a big deal? I wouldn't even if they were younger. Havlat, on the open market, is worth his UFA price, MINUS the cost of 5 first round draft picks, which probably doesn't amount to much money at all (not to mention that it drives up the price that every team has to pay to arbitration eligable players).

Egil is offline  
Old
10-09-2003, 06:27 PM
  #63
Skrymir
Registered User
 
Skrymir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,083
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian
No, that is the minimum amount needed to qualify him. The market value would be what the market is willing to pay for him, hence we would need other teams to stop colluding to find that out.
Good argument, but...

Right now, Havlat's market is the Ottawa Senators. So he should sign for their offering him. Havlat doesn't have leg to stand on in this contract dispute. The sens are not bound by the decisions of irresponsible teams.

Skrymir is offline  
Old
10-09-2003, 06:30 PM
  #64
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 28,525
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egil
If a RFA ONLY had the matching right, you would be correct, but that is not the case. The compensation in draft picks is worth ALOT. Would you trade 5 first round picks for Cujo? or Weight? or any other UFA who signed a big deal? I wouldn't even if they were younger. Havlat, on the open market, is worth his UFA price, MINUS the cost of 5 first round draft picks, which probably doesn't amount to much money at all (not to mention that it drives up the price that every team has to pay to arbitration eligable players).
Why do you assume Havlat would recieve an offer from other teams that would be compensated with 5 draft picks? He isn't worth $5M/year at this stage. Of course every team making the offer (had they not agreed to stop doing it 1998) would have to weigh the value of the lost picks against the benefit of having the rights to the player.

But on the other hand I suspect a team like Colorado/Red Wings wouldn't have a problem throwing a $4-5M contract Gaboriks way. A guy like that would most likely be valued higher by them than 4 high first round picks. But we all know it won't happen and it's not because it wouldn't be a good deal for Avs/Wings but for completely different reasons.

Anyway, what other teams would be willing to offer Havlat is a much more realistic market value for Havlat than what Muckler is willing to offer him.

Freudian is offline  
Old
10-09-2003, 06:36 PM
  #65
Egil
Registered User
 
Egil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,832
vCash: 500
If someone offered it, Ottawa would match, and no one benefits, except the player, so why do it? The compensation, when originaly laid ut, was not designed for the current market situation, which is why no RFA's are signed to offer sheets. The compensation is almost always worth more than the player would be at whatever you are paying him.

Egil is offline  
Old
10-09-2003, 06:40 PM
  #66
Skrymir
Registered User
 
Skrymir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,083
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian
Anyway, what other teams would be willing to offer Havlat is a much more realistic market value for Havlat than what Muckler is willing to offer him.
Your getting confused here. If Havlat was playing for a different team, he would be in a different market and then his 'market value' would change accordingly. Comparing what other teams might be willing pay him is useless, beause he doesn't play for those teams. Right now his right's belong to Ottawa, and should get paid according to the salary structure of the Ottawa senators (ie his 'maket value') not another team in the NHL.

Skrymir is offline  
Old
10-09-2003, 06:46 PM
  #67
Stephen
Registered User
 
Stephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 31,065
vCash: 500
Ottawa dropped the ball big time on this situation.

Give Havlat what he wants, he's not being unreasonable. I know it's not about money, but what does this boil down to? A petty squabble over a few 100Ks that could cost the team an extra 70 point performer, up and coming talent and possibly damage the player/organization relationship permanently. Saving the cash equivalent to a Jody Hull contract or something might not be so smart if they fall just short of the Cup and are forced to trade Havlat later.

Stephen is offline  
Old
10-09-2003, 06:47 PM
  #68
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 28,525
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skrymir
Your getting confused here. If Havlat was playing for a different team, he would be in a different market and then his 'market value' would change accordingly. Comparing what other teams might be willing pay him is useless, beause he doesn't play for those teams. Right now his right's belong to Ottawa, and should get paid according to the salary structure of the Ottawa senators (ie his 'maket value') not another team in the NHL.
And since he hasn't accepted the Sens offer that means the Senators have got his market value wrong? Or are you suggesting that whatever a team is willing to pay a player as long as they are a RFA is the market value, no matter if the player accepts or not?

Price is set where supply and demand meet. It hasn't happened here. Actually supply is on the way back to his home country.

Anyway, my point is that it is nonsensical to talk about market value for RFA since the GMs have colluded to kill the market for RFAs. If they didn't we could find out market value. As it stands now the price is as set as it was in Soviet Union in the 1960s.

Freudian is offline  
Old
10-09-2003, 06:52 PM
  #69
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 28,525
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egil
If someone offered it, Ottawa would match, and no one benefits, except the player, so why do it? The compensation, when originaly laid ut, was not designed for the current market situation, which is why no RFA's are signed to offer sheets. The compensation is almost always worth more than the player would be at whatever you are paying him.
Ah, B-I-N-G-O and Bingo was his name. If Ottawa would match a reasonable offer it would only prove that the player had a higher market value than they offered. And even if the offer was out of this world and they matched, it would prove that they think that he is worth it. Hence we would have a working market for the player instead of the "sign for whatever we offer you"-valuation.

Freudian is offline  
Old
10-09-2003, 07:07 PM
  #70
Skrymir
Registered User
 
Skrymir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,083
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian
And since he hasn't accepted the Sens offer that means the Senators have got his market value wrong? Or are you suggesting that whatever a team is willing to pay a player as long as they are a RFA is the market value, no matter if the player accepts or not?
Yes, that is what I'm suggesting. If a player is an RFA, does not have arbitration rights, and does not have another team offering him a contract, yes, the player should accept the teams offer, because that's the the system is. If those three things happen (which they are in Havlat's case), the players market value is set by the team that holds his rights. Plain and simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian
Price is set where supply and demand meet. It hasn't happened here. Actually supply is on the way back to his home country.
Yeah first year economics. Unfortunately, it doesn't apply here. There is only one product (Havlat), and (presently) only one consumer (the Sens). That's the market right now. No other market should be considered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian
Anyway, my point is that it is nonsensical to talk about market value for RFA since the GMs have colluded to kill the market for RFAs. If they didn't we could find out market value. As it stands now the price is as set as it was in Soviet Union in the 1960s.
No it's really just good buisness sense by the GMs. They don't want to poisin the work relationship they have with other GMs. It's in their best interest to to trade for an RFA if they really want him, than stabbing a coleague in the back by signing that RFA to an Offer sheet. And if they do it to someone, what's to stop someone from happening to them. there is no collusion here, and it should not even enter the discussion.

Skrymir is offline  
Old
10-09-2003, 07:19 PM
  #71
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 28,525
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skrymir
Yeah first year economics. Unfortunately, it doesn't apply here. There is only one product (Havlat), and (presently) only one consumer (the Sens). That's the market right now. No other market should be considered.
Actually it does. Ottawa isn't willing to pay the cost of the product and thus does not get to use it. Very simple economics. Now if Havlat was to be forced to play no matter if he liked it or not you would have a point. But he doesn't and he won't.

Just because a market is monopolistic doesn't mean the market can force transactions on it, you know. And arguing that a non-event has a market value or a price doesn't really fly.

And if your theory was correct every single rookie would sign for minimum rookie salary and they would only get 10% increase after that. Clearly that isn't the case and the market isn't as basic as you think it is.

Freudian is offline  
Old
10-10-2003, 03:58 AM
  #72
Dr.Sens(e)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 6,144
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian
Just because a market is monopolistic doesn't mean the market can force transactions on it, you know. And arguing that a non-event has a market value or a price doesn't really fly.
Actually, if you have leverage, you do control the market value. Market value is always influenced by leverage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian
Actually it does. Ottawa isn't willing to pay the cost of the product and thus does not get to use it. Very simple economics. Now if Havlat was to be forced to play no matter if he liked it or not you would have a point. But he doesn't and he won't.
Hey, what happened to your monopoly spiel? Doesn't sound like a monopoly to me, as Havlat does have options and he's exercising them by going back to Europe, as is his right. The fact he will make a lot less money and his market value will drop by doing so doesn't make it smart however.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian
And if your theory was correct every single rookie would sign for minimum rookie salary and they would only get 10% increase after that. Clearly that isn't the case and the market isn't as basic as you think it is.
No, because most rookies' agents realize the last thing a team wants is to sign their player coming off a rookie deal to a one-year deal. It simply never happens, because it's a very bad move by the team (player gets closer to arbitration and the player can't lose, as they get a raise the next year worst case anyway (qualifying offer) or become a ufa. If they get the qualifying offer, they're now guaranteed to get to arbitration at the youngest possible age.

This is the reason Ottawa will only pay him so much now. Because he will make a LOT more two years from now, versus signing a 4 year deal ala Hossa.

And if the Sens are being so unfair, show me a better one-year deal that has ever been offered to a player coming off their rookie deal. The bottom line is this is the most lucrative one-year deal ever offered under such circumstances. You know why? Because it's stupid for teams to sign players to one year deals coming off their rookie deal so no one does it. They say to the player it's a multi-year deal or bust. So the Sens actually concede and offer a one-year deal, and a bunch of people with blinders on say "hey, that's not a fair deal".

People need to quit looking at the exact dollar amount and think about the terms surrounding that offer.

Dr.Sens(e) is offline  
Old
10-10-2003, 04:13 AM
  #73
SensGod
Registered User
 
SensGod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Scotia Bank Place
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,430
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to SensGod
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen
Ottawa dropped the ball big time on this situation.

Give Havlat what he wants, he's not being unreasonable. I know it's not about money, but what does this boil down to? A petty squabble over a few 100Ks that could cost the team an extra 70 point performer, up and coming talent and possibly damage the player/organization relationship permanently. Saving the cash equivalent to a Jody Hull contract or something might not be so smart if they fall just short of the Cup and are forced to trade Havlat later.
This is a little short sighted...it's more than just a few K here and there...here's why.

Let's say the Sens cave in. Give Havlat what he wanted originally; a 2 year contract at 2.2 and 2.4.

What does this say to Hossa? Who made 1.5 the first year off his rookie contract and about 1.8 the 2nd year. Now, Havlat who score ALOT less points and is at this point in his career worth alot less to the team is only making a few K less than Hossa. This sends the wrong message to Hossa and the rest of the team.

Also...now they've set a presidence for the rest of their young players. If you can score about 60 points...you are worth this at least.

Now...let's fast forward to the 2005-2006 season when Jason Spezza's contract is up. He's going to start at 2.2 as a base because that is what Havlat got. It's pretty safe to assume that Spezza is going to put up better numbers than Havlat. So we'd be in a situation here where we'd probably have to pay Spezza over 3 million coming off his rookie contract.

The fact of the matter is that guys like Havlat are only entitled to a 10% raise on their next contract under the rules of the CBA. There is no market comparison (AKA: arbitration) for these players because the NHLPA didn't deem it necessary to give it to them. Not only did the Sens offer Havlat the 10% raise, but they thought he was worth so much to the team that they decided to give him an offer that was over double his last salary.

Just because there are teams like St.Louis (Pronger), Anaheim (Kariya), Tampa (Richards ) and Philadelphia (Gagne) out there that were stupid enough to grant their young players something (market comparison; aka arbitration) that there were not entitled to does not make the Sens a badly managed team. The way I see it, it's the other way around. Those other teams were badly managed because they gave something away that they should not have.

SensGod is offline  
Old
10-10-2003, 04:31 AM
  #74
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 28,525
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Sens(e)
And if the Sens are being so unfair, show me a better one-year deal that has ever been offered to a player coming off their rookie deal. The bottom line is this is the most lucrative one-year deal ever offered under such circumstances. You know why? Because it's stupid for teams to sign players to one year deals coming off their rookie deal so no one does it. They say to the player it's a multi-year deal or bust. So the Sens actually concede and offer a one-year deal, and a bunch of people with blinders on say "hey, that's not a fair deal".

People need to quit looking at the exact dollar amount and think about the terms surrounding that offer.
Yes, how can we be so blind to see this isn't the best deal ever. A one year deal worth 1.35 and with 10% raise the two next years at a minimum = 1.5, 1.65 = 4,2 for Ottawa at best, which less than half of Richards money (of course this is under the assumption that Havlat agrees to a qualifying offer each year, which seems unlikely but on the other hand we don't even know if the 10% thingy will be in the new CBA). That isn't a much sweeter contract than the two or three year deals other players have gotten. In fact it is much much lower. The only drawback to it is that they have to negotiate with Havlat next season, but given that there will be a new CBA the Sens may get an advantage then.

And of course most contracts after the rookie contracts are multiyear. Negotiations every year is redundant in most cases. But on the other hand, there is nothing that suggest that Havlat don't want to sign a two year deal. Longer than that he gives up arbitration rights (arbitration rights under a new CBA mind you, which means that the payday will be lower than todays standards). And everything about a new CBA is up int he air. Perhaps under the new CBA arbitration rights will come right after the rookie contract but the payoff may be smaller etc etc. If a player doesn't want to have a contract from this CBA drag on forever under the new CBA it is his full right. Havlat may lose from it, Ottawa may lose from it. Most likely it will be Havlat that will lose from having to negotiate a new contract under the new CBA since it seems the overall costs will be lowered. So perhaps that is why Ottawa are so "generous" to grant Havlat the honour of being offered a one year deal?

Anyway, it is a moot point at this stage. Muckler misjudged the situation and Sens-fans will have to pretend Stumpy or someone else is as good as Havlat.

Freudian is offline  
Old
10-10-2003, 04:31 AM
  #75
Big Bill
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Land of milk & honey
Posts: 1,302
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Big Bill Send a message via MSN to Big Bill
Quote:
Originally Posted by SensGod
This is a little short sighted...it's more than just a few K here and there...here's why.

Let's say the Sens cave in. Give Havlat what he wanted originally; a 2 year contract at 2.2 and 2.4.

What does this say to Hossa? Who made 1.5 the first year off his rookie contract and about 1.8 the 2nd year. Now, Havlat who score ALOT less points and is at this point in his career worth alot less to the team is only making a few K less than Hossa. This sends the wrong message to Hossa and the rest of the team.

Also...now they've set a presidence for the rest of their young players. If you can score about 60 points...you are worth this at least.

Now...let's fast forward to the 2005-2006 season when Jason Spezza's contract is up. He's going to start at 2.2 as a base because that is what Havlat got. It's pretty safe to assume that Spezza is going to put up better numbers than Havlat. So we'd be in a situation here where we'd probably have to pay Spezza over 3 million coming off his rookie contract.

The fact of the matter is that guys like Havlat are only entitled to a 10% raise on their next contract under the rules of the CBA. There is no market comparison (AKA: arbitration) for these players because the NHLPA didn't deem it necessary to give it to them. Not only did the Sens offer Havlat the 10% raise, but they thought he was worth so much to the team that they decided to give him an offer that was over double his last salary.

Just because there are teams like St.Louis (Pronger), Anaheim (Kariya), Tampa (Richards ) and Philadelphia (Gagne) out there that were stupid enough to grant their young players something (market comparison; aka arbitration) that there were not entitled to does not make the Sens a badly managed team. The way I see it, it's the other way around. Those other teams were badly managed because they gave something away that they should not have.
And, after that two years is up Havlat then has his arbitration rights. Ottawa would get killed in arbitration by the Havlat camp. Thats why Muckler says he cant have it both ways (high money, short term deal). Havlat basically wants to get paid now for his potential, then in arbitration get paid for his production. He wants tyhe best of both worlds and Muckler is right to stick by his guuns, even if it angers all the poolies who nabbed Havlat in the 3rd rd.

Muckler is being fiscally responsible like all other GMs SHOULD have been, and he takes the heat for it. And using UFAs is a bad comparison. RFAs like Havlat have nothing to use as leverage except sitting out and on a team like Ottawa, that leverage is small.

Big Bill 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 08:03 PM.

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.