dont know why you have such a problem with bates..i agree he is a little inconsistent and will probably have groin problems his whole career..but he is a good hard working ROLE player which is valuable..and i dont know why you are saying he isnt physical he throws his body around all the time -and is actually pretty good at it....
Not a question of having a problem with Bates.
A little inconsistent is not a player who goes at least twenty-thirty games between goals two years in a row. On a team with no first line and a lot of first round prospects who need an opportunity that is a big negative. (his roster spot is a good place for them to develop on a third line)
One look at the goal scoring numbers at even strength reflect Bates cannot help the club consistently.
Sometimes you have to look at intangibles (character/lockeroom/heart) but in doing so you cannot look past the bottom line here which is statistics and in this area he's coming up painfully short on a team that does not have enough scoring.
Business goes on, but this was just not a move that had to be made right now. Free agency is FOUR MONTHS AWAY. There was no need to rush into handing a three-year deal to a guy with string-cheese groins. Unfortunately you are right, this is business as usual under Milbury.
Free Agency is four months away, but the trade deadline is Thursday. Most likely MM wanted the situation resolved now so that he could move him if the damands were too high.
It was a tradeoff....risk signing a player the new GM may not want, or risk losing a player for nothing.
Plus, most of the candidates have been interviewed. I am sure they gave input on some of the players.
Honestly, I like Bates, but I think that's too high for a guy who is limited and has a big injury history. He misses at least 10-12 games a year, this year will miss around 20, and he's going to be 34 in the last year of this deal. I just don't see the need to offer this deal to him, too much money for too many years for a guy with limited contributions, who goes literally months without scoring, and who has chronic groin problems. A 1-year deal would have been fine and if he wouldn't take it, is he THAT vital to us that we just HAD TO offer him three years?
Business goes on, but this was just not a move that had to be made right now. Free agency is FOUR MONTHS AWAY. There was no need to rush into handing a three-year deal to a guy with string-cheese groins. Unfortunately you are right, this is business as usual under Milbury.
The only problem I have with this post is the FOUR MONTHS AWAY part. It's entirely possible Bates goes into the UFA period and someone hands him 1.75 a season (hell, Scatch got 2.25) and Wang counters with 1.8, which Bates gulps up. All of a sudden there's 600k less in the budget.
"String-cheese groins" made me hurt, I have to say.
Imagine if MMM had signed Scatch for 1.75 prior to the deadline? A lot of us would've been jumping for joy.
Honestly, I like Bates, but I think that's too high for a guy who is limited and has a big injury history. He misses at least 10-12 games a year, this year will miss around 20, and he's going to be 34 in the last year of this deal. I just don't see the need to offer this deal to him, too much money for too many years for a guy with limited contributions, who goes literally months without scoring, and who has chronic groin problems. A 1-year deal would have been fine and if he wouldn't take it, is he THAT vital to us that we just HAD TO offer him three years?
I agree that it is a little high, but I think MM may be proven correct over the summer. With the cap going up, lots of penalties still being called, I think good pkers may get more than most think they are worth.
And...Hahn chirps in with his usual 1/2 information to leave one hanging...
"The Islanders still have a handful of potential unrestricted free agents, starting with 23-goal winger Mark Parrish, who is Bates' closest friend on the team."
So, Alan, wanna fill the rest of LI and those Newsday readers who are the remaining players that qualify as a handful b/c Parrish is ONE. This is the type of crap where one is left to debate the merits of York as a UFA or not because Mr. 1/2 sentence does not complete his comments...
I agree that it is a little high, but I think MM may be proven correct over the summer. With the cap going up, lots of penalties still being called, I think good pkers may get more than most think they are worth.
Again, I know that our PK has inherent problems with our D sucking the way it does but again, we're 28th in the league with him. To paraphrase an old line, we can do that without him.
See, we just have a differing philosophy when it comes to contracts and players. I WANT to re-up lower-end guys and get them in the fold at "fair prices" for a period of time. Bates at the reported $1.1M per is VERY fair. What I want to NEVER do is get locked into LARGE multiple year contracts with the wrong "stars". Those are anchors deal that disable a team for years. Bates' contract is very trade friendly. (As for Snow, as I've said elsewhere, much ado about nothing.)
And I disagree about Bates on the open market. Speed, cheap, versatile - he would have received offers, rest assured. Meaning you would have had to overpay to retain him come UFA time. Market dynamics.
I totally agree with you Trotts...1.1 is very fair for what Bates brings to the table every night.
Hell at least i know as most who watch isles games
that Bates earns his salary game in game out.
He deserves it...plus he wants to remain on the Island
The only problem I have with this post is the FOUR MONTHS AWAY part. It's entirely possible Bates goes into the UFA period and someone hands him 1.75 a season (hell, Scatch got 2.25) and Wang counters with 1.8, which Bates gulps up. All of a sudden there's 600k less in the budget.
Yeah, but even though I like Bates he is not that vital of a player that we could not replace him. There is no saying if it got to free agency and he got a silly offer that we'd have to match. Yes, we'd lose him for nothing, but that does not justify throwing a three-year deal at him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pure Slaughter Value
"String-cheese groins" made me hurt, I have to say.
Lol! Thanks! It's a brutal but accurate analogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pure Slaughter Value
Imagine if MMM had signed Scatch for 1.75 prior to the deadline? A lot of us would've been jumping for joy.
Yeah, because Scatch scored 27 goals for us (tops on the team) the year before he hit free agency and was only 28 when he walked. Bates on the other hand we know has a chronic groin problem, is already 31 and will be 34 when his deal is over, and has missed at least 11 games every year for us with groin injuries. Scatch also provided us size that Bates does not. I like Shawn, but he's just a brittle, smallish energy player. This team has so many passengers that fans tend to lionize anyone who shows any sort of hustle, Bates is just the latest example.
And...Hahn chirps in with his usual 1/2 information to leave one hanging...
"The Islanders still have a handful of potential unrestricted free agents, starting with 23-goal winger Mark Parrish, who is Bates' closest friend on the team."
So, Alan, wanna fill the rest of LI and those Newsday readers who are the remaining players that qualify as a handful b/c Parrish is ONE. This is the type of crap where one is left to debate the merits of York as a UFA or not because Mr. 1/2 sentence does not complete his comments...
Kvasha also is a pending UFA, so there's at least two (Parry and Kvasha). York should not be a UFA. That's all I can think of.
Yeah, but even though I like Bates he is not that vital of a player that we could not replace him. There is no saying if it got to free agency and he got a silly offer that we'd have to match. Yes, we'd lose him for nothing, but that does not justify throwing a three-year deal at him.
Lol! Thanks! It's a brutal but accurate analogy.
Yeah, because Scatch scored 27 goals for us (tops on the team) the year before he hit free agency and was only 28 when he walked. Bates on the other hand we know has a chronic groin problem, is already 31 and will be 34 when his deal is over, and has missed at least 11 games every year for us with groin injuries. Scatch also provided us size that Bates does not. I like Shawn, but he's just a brittle, smallish energy player. This team has so many passengers that fans tend to lionize anyone who shows any sort of hustle, Bates is just the latest example.
In Scatch's last season with NYI, he had 9 goals and 25pts in 61games. Which is around what Bates will probably finish the season with. Scatch had 2 seasons of 20+ goals which Bates will likely never duplicate, but their point totals have been quite comparable the past several years. It is not ridiculous to think someone might offer Bates, not quite what Scatch got, but around there. Especially with the cap likely rising.
See, we just have a differing philosophy when it comes to contracts and players. I WANT to re-up lower-end guys and get them in the fold at "fair prices" for a period of time. Bates at the reported $1.1M per is VERY fair.
I actually think we pretty much have the same philosophy, Trots. I am not against the Bates signing per se, I am just against Milbury making a commitment the new GM might not want. Do I think Bates signing was a 'good' signing? Probably, although the length gives me a bit of pause because of his groin problems and age. But that's not really what has bugged me about it. I just want the new GM to have maximum flexibility to craft his team, and even though I like Bates and am happy he's on board, no matter how you slice it this impinges our new GM's flexibility.
I actually think we pretty much have the same philosophy, Trots. I am not against the Bates signing per se, I am just against Milbury making a commitment the new GM might not want. Do I think Bates signing was a 'good' signing? Probably, although the length gives me a bit of pause because of his groin problems and age. But that's not really what has bugged me about it. I just want the new GM to have maximum flexibility to craft his team, and even though I like Bates and am happy he's on board, no matter how you slice it this impinges our new GM's flexibility.
I agree with you Joe when the commitment is not one that could easily be eliminated. My only real disagreement with you is whether or not this will affect the new GM's flexibility. Given that Bates is very versatile as a player, and that he is signed cheaply enough that he could be used as a trade asset, I think this actually improves flexibility come summer.
Also, if Bates is injured it won't affect the cap, especially if it's a longterm injury.
It is not ridiculous to think someone might offer Bates, not quite what Scatch got, but around there. Especially with the cap likely rising.
Besides, get beyond the stat sheet!
This talk about Bates' offense is curious. Were people concerned about Wayne Merrick's offensive production as a third line center on the Cup teams? (Moving up to today, are the defending Cup champs concerned about Tim Taylor's offense manning their third line?) You need two-way, reliable checking forwards among your bottom six, not gunners. (At least on an NHL team vs. a fantasy team.) Guys are third-liners because they work hard...and because they do not possess the offensive capabilities of top 6 forwards! On a team in sad need of defensive personality, one finds it odd that some are still concentrating on your third line center's personal offensive numbers.
And, with rare exception in this thread, not a word about speed.
Clearly, we all simply have different priorities and perspectives on players and what is needed to win.
This much is a given: Coaches like players who they can rely on nightly. Guys who's efforts are predictable. If that player happens to be a superstar talent, all the better. Regardless, dependability is key. Bates fits that description.
On the other hand, for some fans, offensive numbers are the bottom line, definitive judgement of a player. (No Stephane Yelle types need apply, apparently. )
Hence, the difference of opinion among NYI management and some posters regarding this signing. Guy is getting ~$1 mil more in total salary than he currently makes, spread out over three years! Solid economics for the ROI!
This talk about Bates' offense is curious. Were people concerned about Wayne Merrick's offensive production as a third line center on the Cup teams? (Moving up to today, are the defending Cup champs concerned about Tim Taylor's offense manning their third line?) You need two-way, reliable checking forwards among your bottom six, not gunners. (At least on an NHL team vs. a fantasy team.) Guys are third-liners because they work hard...and because they do not possess the offensive capabilties of top 6 forwards. On a team in sad need of defensive personality, one finds it odd that some are still concentrating on your third line center's personal offensive numbers.
And, with rare exception in this thread, not a word about speed.
Clearly, we all simply have different priorities and perspectives on players and what is needed to win.
This much is a given: Coaches like players who they can rely on nightly. Guys who's efforts are predictable. If that player happens to be a superstar talent, all the better. Regardless, dependability is key. Bates fits that description.
On the other hand, for some fans, offensive numbers are the bottom line, definitive judgement of a player. (No Stephane Yelle types need apply, apparently. )
Hence, the difference of opinion among NYI management and some posters regarding this signing. Guy is getting ~$1 mil more in salary than he currently makes, spread out over three years! Solid economics for the ROI!
Also a strong point. I was going to say something on this in the post you quoted, but then spaced it.
You can't use the stat sheet to determine Bates' value. Maltby and Draper for example are extremely valuable players. In his career year, Draper hit 40pts. Maltby's never even done that. At present, these two guys combined have fewer goals than Bates. Does anyone really think Detroit would balk at locking either of them up for 1.2m/year? Seeing that Detroit is currently one of the league's best teams paying these guys 2.2m and 1.4m respectively (a total of 3x Bates's new salary, for 3 less goals), I'd say no.
If the new guy doesnt like Bates he wont have any trouble finding a taker in a trade. I think its smart move to lock him up before losing him for nothing. As a UFA Bates wouldnt have brought in more than a 4th or 5th round pick in a trade. To me a 4th or a 5th round pick is useless.
If you want to go there, then in comparison to Todd Marchant, Bates contract numbers vs. overall production look very good...
I'm not sure what to write here, I guess we could find a lot of players with contract numbers vs overall production that look worse than Bates, but those teams did not offer them a three year extension today. Especially on a team that is having problems scoring and even now does not have a first line.
You can't use the stat sheet to determine Bates' value. Maltby and Draper for example are extremely valuable players. In his career year, Draper hit 40pts. Maltby's never even done that. At present, these two guys combined have fewer goals than Bates. Does anyone really think Detroit would balk at locking either of them up for 1.2m/year?
Exactly.
Have said it for some time: generally speaking, the problem with NYI's forward corp is not among their support players, nor has it been since 2001. I'll go to battle with guys like York, Bates, Parrish, Hunter, even Asham any time. (And previously, the Scatchards and Pecas of the world.) All hard-working, honest players who can contribute, to varying degrees, in all areas of the rink. None without flaws, but all good two-way guys. The problem with NYIs forwards continues to lie in the makeup and game of their core, "star" offensive types. And it has since 2001.
Put it this way: give those aforementioned NYI forwards a core to work with like, say, Ottawa's, Philly's, NJD's or even NYR's and they would thrive.
So to that extent, re-upping one of those reliable support players today is a good move.
Have said it for some time: generally speaking, the problem with NYI's forward corp is not among their support players, nor has it been since 2001. I'll go to battle with guys like York, Bates, Parrish, Hunter, even Asham any time. (And previously, the Scatchards and Pecas of the world.) All hard-working, honest players. None without flaws, but all good two-way guys. The problem with NYIs forwards continues to lie in the makeup and game of their core, "star" offensive types. And it has since 2001.
Put it this way: give those aforementioned NYI forwards a core to work with like, say, Ottawa's, Philly's, NJD's or even NYR's and they would thrive.
So to that extent, re-upping one of those reliable support players today is a good move.
I absolutely agree with this. Just looking at this year: Ever since Satan has stepped up and taken responsibility at both ends of the ice and is playing hard, the team has been immeasurably stronger. Recently we beat top teams in the Philadelphia and NJ, and both of these were pretty good wins. The support players are the least of our problems.
I do still think we could benefit from a faceoff ace with size and defensive acumen to hold down the third line, but that's rather beside the point.
I agree with you Joe when the commitment is not one that could easily be eliminated. My only real disagreement with you is whether or not this will affect the new GM's flexibility. Given that Bates is very versatile as a player, and that he is signed cheaply enough that he could be used as a trade asset, I think this actually improves flexibility come summer.
Fair enough, Seph. I would rather wait and try to sign him when the new GM is in place -- and I would have liked to see us do so -- but I see your point. I think it's a little bit of a slippery slope because I don't want Milbury making these kinds of judgment calls if he doesn't have to, but I agree that the impact relative to Bates probably is not that bad.
Last edited by Capt Reynolds: 03-06-2006 at 02:21 PM.
I'm not sure what to write here, I guess we could find a lot of players with contract numbers vs overall production that look worse than Bates, but those teams did not offer them a three year extension today. Especially on a team that is having problems scoring and even now does not have a first line.
No one is expecting the guy to play 1st line. Two different worlds we are looking at here. Bates is no longer the 5th man on the PP like he was previously was - thank god. He is a quality 3rd/4th liner at a very affordable price. Apparently, Mr. No Desperation couldn't earn himself an extension, let alone playing time.
This is also a good move because NYI have a crop of young kids entering the mix this summer. As usual, in past seasons most of them have played the first 10-20 games and were sent down to BST: Nilsson, Bergie, etc. Campoli is the rare one to stick for the season. The high probablity is that Bates is a perfect low end player to balance out time when the kids are back in BST, scratched, or an injury happens.
Maybe Bates is not resigned because Nokie plays well enough this season to make NYI view him as expendable. Obviously, that did not happen b/c of the injury. There are only so many nights a team can go with bona-fide AHL players during a season. Bates has proved, in a limited role, that he can be effective. This coming from someone who has had issues with his over use in the past.
Some have argued that Scatchard was pricey at 2.2 mil p/s for a 3rd liner.
)
