WHY, WHY, WHY is MM making this deal now?!?!? Was Shawn Bates going to be SO wanted on the free agent market that we HAD to lock him up now?
Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with Bates, but why is MM making LONG-TERM decisions about this team?!?!?! Shouldn't that be the new GM's job? If the new guy wanted to keep him, that's fine...but MM shouldn't make that call!
I'm really torn about this. On the one hand, when I read the title of the thread my instant reaction was joy, because I really like Bates and he is exactly the type of player I want on my New York Islanders -- hard working, versatile, team-oriented. On the other hand, though, I don't know that we should be committing to anyone we don't have to until the new GM comes in. Maybe the new GM wants to go in a different direction, or wants to allocate dollars differently? Maybe the new GM wants to go youth, or wants to put more dollars into the D? Anything that commits us longer than we need to be should not be done until the new GM is in place. So I am very torn -- am a big fan of Bates and glad he's around, but I don't think we should be tying the new GM's hands any more than we need to.
Assuming the dollars are reasonable (around 1m, I hope) then I think this is a quality move. If the new GM wants to go in a different direction, then he can simply trade Bates for a pick, I am sure that someone would take him. That's still more than we'd get if we just let him go as a UFA, and the odds of moving him before the deadline are decidedly slim with the team playing well and him being a key part of that.
Assuming the dollars are reasonable (around 1m, I hope) then I think this is a quality move. If the new GM wants to go in a different direction, then he can simply trade Bates for a pick, I am sure that someone would take him. That's still more than we'd get if we just let him go as a UFA, and the odds of moving him before the deadline are decidedly slim with the team playing well and him being a key part of that.
Let's just hope Milbury doesn't apply the same philosophy to a 'reasonably' signed Kvasha!
There just was no need to make the move now. The new GM could have decided to resign him when he takes over, which should be some time in April and certainly well in advance of July 1. I'm assuming it was done now b/c if Bates did not resign at a reasonable rate Milbury was going to trade him rather than risk losing him for nothing. But even so, Milbury just should not be making a long-term commitment. It's easy to say that the new GM can just trade him for a pick, but that is often easier said than done. In a nutshell this is a gamble -- we're gambling that the new GM wants to keep Bates or that, if he doesn't, that he can move him. I like Bates, but there was no need to take this gamble -- we could have hung onto him and let the new GM make the decision.
3 MORE YEARS FOR SHAWN
Islanders Sign Bates to 3-year deal
"Shawn has been a very good player for us for four seasons now and his wish was to stay an Islander," said general manager Mike Milbury. "We were happy to get a long-term deal done with him. Shawn is the kind of versatile and dedicated player that every team in the NHL wants. In a skater's game, he has become even more valuable."
"I've loved my four seasons with the Islanders. This is where I really developed as a player," Bates said this morning in Washington, where the Islanders play the Capitals tonight. "It was a priority for me to stay an Islander. I'm very appreciative that management was as enthusiastic about making a commitment to me."
Let's just hope Milbury doesn't apply the same philosophy to a 'reasonably' signed Kvasha!
There just was no need to make the move now. The new GM could have decided to resign him when he takes over, which should be some time in April and certainly well in advance of July 1. I'm assuming it was done now b/c if Bates did not resign at a reasonable rate Milbury was going to trade him rather than risk losing him for nothing. But even so, Milbury just should not be making a long-term commitment. It's easy to say that the new GM can just trade him for a pick, but that is often easier said than done. In a nutshell this is a gamble -- we're gambling that the new GM wants to keep Bates or that, if he doesn't, that he can move him. I like Bates, but there was no need to take this gamble -- we could have hung onto him and let the new GM make the decision.
On the other hand, it's a gamble if don't sign him when he wants to sign, that we'll be able to sign him when other teams start floating talk of offers his way. Especially seeing that we have no idea when a new GM will be appointed, and when he is how long it will take him to get into the swing of things. It's also quite possible that Bates would be more willing to sign a cheap contract as a favor to the guy that got him into the NHL in the first place, than he would for whoever replaces Milbury. At the very least, someone would pluck Bates off of waivers, assuming he makes 1m or less. Which again results in the same compensation as losing him to UFA.
Although I agree that generally MM should not be signing long-term contracts, I think this is a good move (assuming the $$$ are reasonable). After seeing some of the contracts that players have gotten, I think a good role player like Bates may have gotten an inflated contract on the open market. I can't see this contract being for enough money that it could be a bad thing, and I can't see a new GM deciding he didn't want Bates on the team.
He helps the team early with his usual scoring streak, he can play a little defense and take some faceoffs but it makes no sense to give a player who simply cannot score
and has demonstrated repeatedly he cannot put the puck in the net consistently
this kind of deal at any price and that does not even speak to his history with injuries and his lack of size/age on a very small team to begin with.
You want a new gm/coach deciding this players fate here and you give that money to Parrish if your going to give it to anyone.
He helps the team early with his usual scoring streak, he can play a little defense and take some faceoffs but it makes no sense to give a player who simply cannot score
and has demonstrated repeatedly he cannot put the puck in the net consistently
this kind of deal at any price and that does not even speak to his history with injuries and his lack of size/age on a very small team to begin with.
You want a new gm/coach deciding this players fate here and you give that money to Parrish if your going to give it to anyone.
Depends on what Parrish is willing to sign for. If he's not willing to sign cheaply, then he becomes a much harder asset to move when the new GM comes in. Also, at this time in the year, Bates' contract is unlikely to have any affect on Parrish's.
He helps the team early with his usual scoring streak, he can play a little defense and take some faceoffs but it makes no sense to give a player who simply cannot score
and has demonstrated repeatedly he cannot put the puck in the net consistently
this kind of deal at any price and that does not even speak to his history with injuries and his lack of size/age on a very small team to begin with.
You want a new gm/coach deciding this players fate here and you give that money to Parrish if your going to give it to anyone.
He has some value to the team as you pointed out but I don't get why this decision HAD to be made now. IF the new GM wanted him, he could have signed him when he comes on board. Now, he has another long-term contract to manage.
I like Bates' effort and drive but NYIsles is right. He is a very limited player (who, btw, has contributed NOTHING offensively since his injury) and is easily replaced. I'm not trying to crush the guy, but it isn't like he was a no-brainer to be re-signed. Like, let's just say that we had a player like Eric Staal who was a UFA...OF COURSE we would try to re-sign him before he hit the market. But, Shawn Bates? Why was their such urgency to lock him up, ESPECIALLY with a new GM coming in???
Well, I'm not too crazy about MM locking players up long term. However, he did say that was NYI's philosophy with regard to NYI UFA's before the deadline. Pointing out the obvious, but NYI are retaining a limited skilled player with injury history for 3 additional years.
On the other hand, he most likely signed to a reasonable contract over the terms. If he comes in around 1 mil p/y, then that's reasonable and fine with me. Like Seph said, if the new GM doesn't want him around, then he can be traded. No biggie.
I would have MORE of an issue with MM locking up higher salaried players. So far, that has not happened.
On the other hand, it's a gamble if don't sign him when he wants to sign, that we'll be able to sign him when other teams start floating talk of offers his way. Especially seeing that we have no idea when a new GM will be appointed, and when he is how long it will take him to get into the swing of things. It's also quite possible that Bates would be more willing to sign a cheap contract as a favor to the guy that got him into the NHL in the first place, than he would for whoever replaces Milbury. At the very least, someone would pluck Bates off of waivers, assuming he makes 1m or less. Which again results in the same compensation as losing him to UFA.
I agree, that is a gamble for precisely the reasons you state. But as much as you and I like Bates (he's Masterful! ) the new GM is the one who should be making that decision, not me, you or Milbury. Yes, we could lose him via free agency if we didn't sign him now, but it's just not Milbury's place to decide who is so valuable we should lock them up. What happens when Milbury decides Kvasha is a good PKer and Oleg decides he'll sign a three-year deal for $800,000 and Milbury locks him up? We said it as a joke before, but should Milbury make that decision? Yes, perhaps there was some marginally greater risk of losing Bates if we waited until April, but given our situation those are the breaks -- Milbury simply should not be tying our new GM's hands with any new commitments.
I suspect the Isles did have some input from the new GM (whoever that might be).
My personal opinion about Bates is that he is a fairly limited guy, but has worked his butt off. You want to keep guys like that around, just like you want to unload the floaters (like Kvasha).
If the money is not too bad, I don't mind this move at all.
I guess I'm at the point I think Bates has no business being on this teams top three lines and only should take some faceoffs and play on the fourth lines, too many kids with good potential he's standing in the way of for the next three years. He's not physical, goes into huge scoring slumps.
I was really hoping he we not be back, somehow he get's a three year contract for not producing. I know he closed the doors and let the team have it recently and no doubt is seen as a leader in his own way but the overall production does not merit this kind of contract.
I would have looked at the 27th ranked penalty kill and said Sean Bates has been a lot less effective this season. Why 3 years? This is a guy with chronic groin problems, whose best attribute is his speed. Stupid.
He has some value to the team as you pointed out but I don't get why this decision HAD to be made now. IF the new GM wanted him, he could have signed him when he comes on board. Now, he has another long-term contract to manage.
I like Bates' effort and drive but NYIsles is right. He is a very limited player (who, btw, has contributed NOTHING offensively since his injury) and is easily replaced. I'm not trying to crush the guy, but it isn't like he was a no-brainer to be re-signed. Like, let's just say that we had a player like Eric Staal who was a UFA...OF COURSE we would try to re-sign him before he hit the market. But, Shawn Bates? Why was their such urgency to lock him up, ESPECIALLY with a new GM coming in???
I'm completely baffled by this move.
Probably because the two sides came to an amicable agreement. Most likely without an extension Bates' was going to be traded to 29 other locations in the NHL. Then, he would have to find a new team among the other 29-30 in the league during the summer. Bates most likely took less money to avoid that and stay with NYI.
I'm not too keen on the 3yr part b/c of his groin problems.
You want a new gm/coach deciding this players fate here and you give that money to Parrish if your going to give it to anyone.
I disagree completely with signing Parrish over Bates. Assuming that Bates' contract is not outrageous, then you are talking about a small cap hit. Parrish' contract demands are most likely much higher (2.5-3?), meaning that signing him would have a much bigger effect on the moves that the new GM could make.
I think this comes down to
1) Bates giving the Isles a discount (at least that's what it sounds like in the article)
2) MM judging that with the cap going up, continued increase in penalties, new rules that players who can skate and kill penalties may be seeing inflated offers over the summer.
I agree, that is a gamble for precisely the reasons you state. But as much as you and I like Bates (he's Masterful! ) the new GM is the one who should be making that decision, not me, you or Milbury. Yes, we could lose him via free agency if we didn't sign him now, but it's just not Milbury's place to decide who is so valuable we should lock them up. What happens when Milbury decides Kvasha is a good PKer and Oleg decides he'll sign a three-year deal for $800,000 and Milbury locks him up? We said it as a joke before, but should Milbury make that decision? Yes, perhaps there was some marginally greater risk of losing Bates if we waited until April, but given our situation those are the breaks -- Milbury simply should not be tying our new GM's hands with any new commitments.
Well, the big difference in Bates and Oleg is that one I think with a longterm contract for a reasonable rate still has trade value and at worst would be picked up on waivers. The other, well... With a longterm contract, I think we'd probably end up stuck with. So there's risk with Oleg. But I think we're unlikely to get a new GM until the offseason, that wouldn't offer the guy much time to work something out with Bates, especially with all the other things that will already be on his plate. So IMO, the greater risk is in not signing him.
Again, all this assumes reasonable dollar figures in the contract.
I would have MORE of an issue with MM locking up higher salaried players. So far, that has not happened.
But that's exactly the point. Milbury should not be making the call as to who is important enough or signing reasonably enough to keep. He does not know how the new GM wants to allocate resources. He just should not be tying our hands going forward. We all happen to like Bates, but that is beside the point. The bigger issue is there was no pressing need to make this signing when the new GM is coming on. If Milbury could get ALL our pending free agents signed reasonably, or, hell, even at a discount, SHOULD he? Of course not. We're not bringing in a new GM to keep all of Milbury's players but just at reasonable rates, we're bringing him in b/c Milbury's team is more or less a failure and the new GM will restructure the team. So why tie the new guy's hands? There was plenty of time to do this between now and July 1 and the new GM could deal with it then. And if Bates walked, well, we'd have to find another sparkplug player with string-cheese groins to score ten goals for us next year. I like him, and I'm glad he'll be around, but he's limited and it's not my place any more than it is Milbury's to decide who we should be retaining.
One other minor point on this move. Compare it with the recent waiving of Weinhandl who Shaw said "lacked desperation." Play halfheartedly, get waived. Play your heart out, get an extension. If nothing else, it sends the right message.
But that's exactly the point. Milbury should not be making the call as to who is important enough or signing reasonably enough to keep. He does not know how the new GM wants to allocate resources. He just should not be tying our hands going forward. We all happen to like Bates, but that is beside the point. The bigger issue is there was no pressing need to make this signing when the new GM is coming on. If Milbury could get ALL our pending free agents signed reasonably, or, hell, even at a discount, SHOULD he? Of course not. We're not bringing in a new GM to keep all of Milbury's players but just at reasonable rates, we're bringing him in b/c Milbury's team is more or less a failure and the new GM will restructure the team. So why tie the new guy's hands? There was plenty of time to do this between now and July 1 and the new GM could deal with it then. And if Bates walked, well, we'd have to find another sparkplug player with string-cheese groins to score ten goals for us next year. I like him, and I'm glad he'll be around, but he's limited and it's not my place any more than it is Milbury's to decide who we should be retaining.
But someone has to make these decisions. Whether we like him or not, Milbury is still the GM, and has to continue playing the role until someone else is hired.
) the new GM is the one who should be making that decision, not me, you or Milbury. Yes, we could lose him via free agency if we didn't sign him now, but it's just not Milbury's place to decide who is so valuable we should lock them up. What happens when Milbury decides Kvasha is a good PKer and Oleg decides he'll sign a three-year deal for $800,000 and Milbury locks him up? We said it as a joke before, but should Milbury make that decision? Yes, perhaps there was some marginally greater risk of losing Bates if we waited until April, but given our situation those are the breaks -- Milbury simply should not be tying our new GM's hands with any new commitments.
