HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Andrew Shaw

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-28-2016, 07:37 PM
  #76
yianik
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
He's repeatedly said that he's not a July 1st GM and that the price of those guys is too high. In his end of year press conference he even said his aim was to acquire more depth scorers. Why should anyone expect things to be different?
Dunno, just hoping he isn't an imbecile that is going to ruin this team I guess.

yianik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 07:38 PM
  #77
Craig71
Registered User
 
Craig71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 10,606
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
He's repeatedly said that he's not a July 1st GM and that the price of those guys is too high. In his end of year press conference he even said his aim was to acquire more depth scorers. Why should anyone expect things to be different?
I remember him saying that he wanted to increase scoring from the bottom six as a way to increase our offense. It makes sense that he got Shaw because it lines up perfectly with what he said he was going to do. I do not think that Bergevin is making a serious pitch for Stamkos, he simply does not show interest in talented players. He likes the underdog type and has this team full of them. The talented players on this roster are not his doing.

Craig71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 07:44 PM
  #78
SirClintonPortis
ProudCapitalsTraitor
 
SirClintonPortis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland native
Country: United States
Posts: 11,571
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by yianik View Post
Gally27 at $6-$6.5.M for 6-7 years.

Patches you trade in 2 years, and I like the guy.
Forsberg's deal is a "bridge-skipper". Gachenyuk is already on his bridge, and he has no reason to give Bergevin a discount now. He's gonna prove himself and make Bergevin pay for his stupidity.

If Galchenyuk explodes like a man given a fine ******* this season to forty goals or 20 more assists while still scoring 30 goals, 6.5 million will NOT be enough. Who knows, if Muller fixes the PP and advises moar Galchenyuk and no DD, it very well can happen.

SirClintonPortis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 07:44 PM
  #79
yianik
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig71 View Post
I remember him saying that he wanted to increase scoring from the bottom six as a way to increase our offense. It makes sense that he got Shaw because it lines up perfectly with what he said he was going to do. I do not think that Bergevin is making a serious pitch for Stamkos, he simply does not show interest in talented players. He likes the underdog type and has this team full of them. The talented players on this roster are not his doing.
Would explain why he sticks with the talentless coach.

yianik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 07:46 PM
  #80
SirClintonPortis
ProudCapitalsTraitor
 
SirClintonPortis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland native
Country: United States
Posts: 11,571
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by yianik View Post
Dunno, just hoping he isn't an imbecile that is going to ruin this team I guess.
What you want is not what you will get. Bergevin has more or less stuck to his "stuck in neutral" approach of lateral moving everything and committing wholesale to nothing. So you have a move which looks like he's building in the draft by trading away Eller but then he acquires Shaw because Shaw helps the team compete NOW.

All while age depreciation is ravaging our roster. Every year that Markov and Pleks grow a year older, they will approach closer to the point in which they no longer can hold the roles they do now.

SirClintonPortis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 07:46 PM
  #81
LaP
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Quebec City, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,406
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis View Post
Forsberg's deal is a "bridge-skipper". Gachenyuk is already on his bridge, and he has no reason to give Bergevin a discount now. He's gonna prove himself and make Bergevin pay for his stupidity.

If Galchenyuk explodes like a man given a fine ******* this season to forty goals or 20 more assists while still scoring 30 goals, 6.5 million will NOT be enough. Who knows, if Muller fixes the PP and advises moar Galchenyuk and no DD, it very well can happen.
Yeah but the Bustenyuk guys will tell you it's a good thing because he became a better person with his bridge contract.

You can still find people saying Subban's bridge contract was a good idea.

LaP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 07:52 PM
  #82
Lebowski
El Duderino
 
Lebowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 12,650
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaP View Post
Yeah but the Bustenyuk guys will tell you it's a good thing because he became a better person with his bridge contract.

You can still find people saying Subban's bridge contract was a good idea.
I hated Subban's bridge contract since day 1, but I was fine with Galchenyuk getting one. There was more uncertainty in his case.

Unless he challenges for the Art Ross or something crazy like that, I don't think he'll be looking at that much more than what guys like Forsberg and Barkov just signed for, bridge contract or not.

Lebowski is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 07:53 PM
  #83
yianik
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis View Post
Forsberg's deal is a "bridge-skipper". Gachenyuk is already on his bridge, and he has no reason to give Bergevin a discount now. He's gonna prove himself and make Bergevin pay for his stupidity.

If Galchenyuk explodes like a man given a fine ******* this season to forty goals or 20 more assists while still scoring 30 goals, 6.5 million will NOT be enough. Who knows, if Muller fixes the PP and advises moar Galchenyuk and no DD, it very well can happen.
Unfortunately it appears you are correct, this is Forsberg's 1st contract out of his ELC. Ouch, Nashville only bought up 2 years of UFA. You are right , $6-$6.5M will not do it.

yianik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 08:02 PM
  #84
LaP
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Quebec City, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,406
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lebowski View Post
I hated Subban's bridge contract since day 1, but I was fine with Galchenyuk getting one. There was more uncertainty in his case.

Unless he challenges for the Art Ross or something crazy like that, I don't think he'll be looking at that much more than what guys like Forsberg and Barkov just signed for, bridge contract or not.
There's one thing i must say.

Bridge contracts might cost you a lot of money. But they let you sign your players up until they are 31-32 after the bridge.

TB did not sign bridge contracts. They went for 4-5 years deal. Result? Stamkos might be UFA this summer at 26 and Hedman might be ufa next summer (2017) at 26 too. If they want to sign both it will cost a trunk load of money. Probably 20+ millions.

There's 2 sides to every medals. Yes PK at 9 is not optimal. But we have him up until his prime is over and at that point we will know how he aged and he will be less likely to want to sign elsewhere.

Avoiding the bridge looks good the first 4-5 years. But when the guy hits the UFA market at 26-28 right in the middle of his prime it's a little bit less funny.

LaP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 08:18 PM
  #85
WG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 664
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis View Post
Forsberg's deal is a "bridge-skipper". Gachenyuk is already on his bridge, and he has no reason to give Bergevin a discount now. He's gonna prove himself and make Bergevin pay for his stupidity.

If Galchenyuk explodes like a man given a fine ******* this season to forty goals or 20 more assists while still scoring 30 goals, 6.5 million will NOT be enough. Who knows, if Muller fixes the PP and advises moar Galchenyuk and no DD, it very well can happen.
I assume we can get Galchenyuk's extension done right after July 1. Better to get it done now rather than let him go 30-40 and command gigantic dollars. It would also send a nice message to prioritize signing a top end player drafted by the team as soon as it is feasible to do so. I'd like to see if 8/$52 would do it, but either way get it done ASAP and let's avoid the Subban fiasco of a couple of years ago.

WG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 08:20 PM
  #86
Sorinth
Registered User
 
Sorinth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,659
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaP View Post
There's one thing i must say.

Bridge contracts might cost you a lot of money. But they let you sign your players up until they are 31-32 after the bridge.

TB did not sign bridge contracts. They went for 4-5 years deal. Result? Stamkos might be UFA this summer at 26 and Hedman might be ufa next summer (2017) at 26 too. If they want to sign both it will cost a trunk load of money. Probably 20+ millions.

There's 2 sides to every medals. Yes PK at 9 is not optimal. But we have him up until his prime is over and at that point we will know how he aged and he will be less likely to want to sign elsewhere.

Avoiding the bridge looks good the first 4-5 years. But when the guy hits the UFA market at 26-28 right in the middle of his prime it's a little bit less funny.
Well Colorado forced a bridge on O'Reilly and then had to trade him because he wouldn't sign a long term deal with them. So no a bridge deal doesn't guarantee you'll keep a player through his prime. Let's not forget we needed the owner to step in and get PK signed longterm. And I could list dozens of players who got skipped the bridge deal then re-signed with their team like Kopitar, Kane, Toews, Perry, Getzlaf, Malkin, Kessel, etc...

Sorinth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 09:00 PM
  #87
Darz
Registered User
 
Darz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Where's the ANY key?
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,523
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
Does Desharnais's 3.5m look better today then it did when he signed his extension? What about Emelin or Eller's? If you are overpaid the fact that it will goes down as a % doesn't really change that.

Considering Price, Subban, Pacioretty, Galchenyuk are likely to take up > 40% of the cap when their extensions are due, spending 4% on a role player isn't good idea.
To answer your first part....in strictly percentage of cap alotted to said player, yes Desharnais deal is better this year than the year he signed it. I wasn't factoring oerformance in my original post, since it Shaws case it mighty difficult to see into the future, so...

In responds to your second part, IF chucky pac price and Subban take up 40 percent of the cap, that would mean we would have 60 percent for 18 players, which would average out to over 3 percent per player. I don't think Shaw at 4 percent would be a drag on the team

__________________
Hey look, it's Duffman; the guy in a costume that creates awareness of Duff!
Darz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 09:03 PM
  #88
Lebowski
El Duderino
 
Lebowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 12,650
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaP View Post
There's one thing i must say.

Bridge contracts might cost you a lot of money. But they let you sign your players up until they are 31-32 after the bridge.

TB did not sign bridge contracts. They went for 4-5 years deal. Result? Stamkos might be UFA this summer at 26 and Hedman might be ufa next summer (2017) at 26 too. If they want to sign both it will cost a trunk load of money. Probably 20+ millions.

There's 2 sides to every medals. Yes PK at 9 is not optimal. But we have him up until his prime is over and at that point we will know how he aged and he will be less likely to want to sign elsewhere.

Avoiding the bridge looks good the first 4-5 years. But when the guy hits the UFA market at 26-28 right in the middle of his prime it's a little bit less funny.
Speaking of Tampa in particular, I think they just tied their arms behind their back committing too much money to marginal players. The Callahan and Carle contracts come to mind.

Money wouldn't be an issue for them had they been smarter at identifying their core pieces in the past.

Lebowski is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 09:34 PM
  #89
Darz
Registered User
 
Darz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Where's the ANY key?
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,523
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post

EDIT: Having one overpaid player is never a liability. But the GM has a history of overpaying players, and Shaw is just one more example of that.
Um Gally, Pacs and Prices contracts disagree

Darz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 09:41 PM
  #90
BigDaddyLurch
#DaFoxholeIzDead
 
BigDaddyLurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Out of the Foxhole
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darz View Post
Um Gally, Pacs and Prices contracts disagree
...but the Desharnais, Emelin, Byron, Briere, Prust, and Shaw contracts don't...

BigDaddyLurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 09:48 PM
  #91
JohnLennon
Registered User
 
JohnLennon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDaddyLurch View Post
...but the Desharnais, Emelin, Byron, Briere, Prust, and Shaw contracts don't...
We're complaining about 1.16M dollar contracts now?

JohnLennon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 09:53 PM
  #92
Sorinth
Registered User
 
Sorinth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,659
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDaddyLurch View Post
...but the Desharnais, Emelin, Byron, Briere, Prust, and Shaw contracts don't...
And Moen and Prust and Mitchell and Bouillon. And remember that time he gave Drewiskie a 2 year deal.

He's constantly paying too much especially in term to marginal players.

Sorinth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 09:53 PM
  #93
BigDaddyLurch
#DaFoxholeIzDead
 
BigDaddyLurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Out of the Foxhole
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
We're complaining about 1.16M dollar contracts now?
...you know what "term" is, right??...

BigDaddyLurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 09:59 PM
  #94
JohnLennon
Registered User
 
JohnLennon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDaddyLurch View Post
...you know what "term" is, right??...
Yes. Except you were responding to a post addressing overpaid players. It literally said "the GM has a history of overpaying players" meaning you implied that Byron was overpaid. I just don't see how anyone can really complain about a contract like that. It's a bit silly.

JohnLennon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 10:01 PM
  #95
BigDaddyLurch
#DaFoxholeIzDead
 
BigDaddyLurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Out of the Foxhole
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
Yes. Except you were responding to a post addressing overpaid players. It literally said "the GM has a history of overpaying players" meaning you implied that Byron was overpaid. I just don't see how anyone can really complain about a contract like that. It's a bit silly.
...no, it isn't...he's overpaid by 2 years...in contracts, both the money & term matter...really that simple...

BigDaddyLurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 10:03 PM
  #96
Sorinth
Registered User
 
Sorinth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,659
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darz View Post
To answer your first part....in strictly percentage of cap alotted to said player, yes Desharnais deal is better this year than the year he signed it. I wasn't factoring oerformance in my original post, since it Shaws case it mighty difficult to see into the future, so...

In responds to your second part, IF chucky pac price and Subban take up 40 percent of the cap, that would mean we would have 60 percent for 18 players, which would average out to over 3 percent per player. I don't think Shaw at 4 percent would be a drag on the team
Which is why you shouldn't commit long term to depth players.

The problem is if we fill out the rest of the roster with 3% players (~2.5m) then we aren't going to be a very good team. We will need other good players like Petry who would be at (6.5%) so that room will run out very quickly.

Sorinth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 10:06 PM
  #97
WhiskeySeven
Retired. Bye.
 
WhiskeySeven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 22,409
vCash: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
We're complaining about 1.16M dollar contracts now?
On-ice: Desharnais, Emelin, Byron, Briere, Prust, and Shaw (and Moen, Flynn, Mitchell and Bouillon) are all examples of complementary-at-best players. Ones who, generally, do not offer any specific elite ability that helps you win games - Emelin's hitting being an exception, alongside Briere's past 'clutchness' and Byron's speed.

You simply don't give term AND cash to these players because they are easily replaceable. One, or the other, not both. Not one of those players was ever or will ever be considered underpaid, many are in fact considered overpaid. There is a reason for this.

Opportunity cost and marginal return. You have a limited number of roster spots, a limited number of lines, a limited number of minutes. It's not Basketball or Soccer where the rosters are so small that only the best of the best get to play, but it's not like Football either where teams can carry so many players either. Hell, even in football players are specialized at that level.

Watch more games - these players won't stand out in any way. And that's why they shouldn't get term and cash. That's why it's perfectly legitimate to complain about even a 800k contract - if it's a bad one. Drewiskie was a bad contract and a bad acquisition. Semin was a bad acquisition. Kassian too. Risks and rewards don't work this way, pro-scouting should've indicated that Semin was done and dusted and common sense should've told BargainBin that Therrien would never use him properly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
And Moen and Prust and Mitchell and Bouillon. And remember that time he gave Drewiskie a 2 year deal.

He's constantly paying too much especially in term to marginal players.
It's his thing.

Anyway, I'm not so down on Shaw if we pick up a legitimate top-line player. Shaw is a good piece, despite all the huge warts and question marks, he definitely fits the mold of what BargainBin is trying to build - which is an improvement over the "throw it at the wall and see what happens" approach from previous off-seasons.

WhiskeySeven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 10:07 PM
  #98
JohnLennon
Registered User
 
JohnLennon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDaddyLurch View Post
...no, it isn't...he's overpaid by 2 years...in contracts, both the money & term matter...really that simple...
It's a 1.16M cap hit.

JohnLennon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 10:10 PM
  #99
BigDaddyLurch
#DaFoxholeIzDead
 
BigDaddyLurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Out of the Foxhole
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
It's a 1.16M cap hit.
...for 2 years longer than it should be...that's overpaying...why is this hard for you to get??...BargainBin has a history of overpaying, both in salary and in length of contract and on many occasions by doing both at once...proof is in the pudding...

BigDaddyLurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2016, 10:15 PM
  #100
JohnLennon
Registered User
 
JohnLennon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeySeven View Post
On-ice: Desharnais, Emelin, Byron, Briere, Prust, and Shaw (and Moen, Flynn, Mitchell and Bouillon) are all examples of complementary-at-best players. Ones who, generally, do not offer any specific elite ability that helps you win games - Emelin's hitting being an exception, alongside Briere's past 'clutchness' and Byron's speed.

You simply don't give term AND cash to these players because they are easily replaceable. One, or the other, not both. Not one of those players was ever or will ever be considered underpaid, many are in fact considered overpaid. There is a reason for this.

Opportunity cost and marginal return. You have a limited number of roster spots, a limited number of lines, a limited number of minutes. It's not Basketball or Soccer where the rosters are so small that only the best of the best get to play, but it's not like Football either where teams can carry so many players either. Hell, even in football players are specialized at that level.

Watch more games - these players won't stand out in any way. And that's why they shouldn't get term and cash.
Yes, they're all complementary players. And all are paid as such. Prust's contract is done and was well worth it. DD is done this year, not exactly a massive handicap. Flynn is 950K and done this year. Byron is 1.16M and only three years. Mitchell is 1.2M. It almost feels redundant explaining each and every contract to you, but let me spell it out: None of these contracts, aside from maybe Emelin's, is really handicapping us in any way. Third line and fourth line players still earn contracts too, by the way. Complaining about the likes of Byron, Flynn, Prust, and Mitchell is just silly. They are bottom six players, paid like bottom six players.

It becomes clear reading threads like these that no one really knows how other NHL teams' cap structures look.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDaddyLurch View Post
...for 2 years longer than it should be...that's overpaying...why is this hard for you to get??...BargainBin has a history of overpaying, both in salary and in length of contract and on many occasions by doing both at once...proof is in the pudding...
How is it too long? It's 3 years at 1.16M. He's 27 and produces fairly well for a fourth liner while also playing PK. You're complaining for the sake of it.

JohnLennon 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 10:52 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2017 All Rights Reserved.