HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Dallas Stars
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Steve Ott Agrees to 4 Year Extension ($2.95 million/year per ESPN Dallas)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-01-2010, 05:51 PM
  #26
hairylikebear
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\|\\
 
hairylikebear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Houston
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 2,013
vCash: 500
Ott is still tradeable during the off-season, so this contract doesn't affect the ability to sign Neal and Grossman. I don't know how anyone can call this bad asset management when the alternative is letting him walk for nothing, or trading him for a rental that doesn't even improve the team any more than Ott does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by txomisc View Post
It would be insulting if Joe goes to Neals camp with anything less than what Ott got as a starting point. I know Ott had more leverage, but Neal is clearly the better player. We'll be lucky now if we could get him to sign a 2 year 7 million dollar contract. More than likely I think we have to give up an Eriksson sized deal.
I doubt Neal would get more than $2 million from arbitration, so that would be the starting point, with the price going up for there to buy additional years.

edit: LOL NEVER MIND ABOUT THE ARBITRATION THING


Last edited by hairylikebear: 03-01-2010 at 05:59 PM.
hairylikebear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2010, 05:54 PM
  #27
Kritter471
Registered User
 
Kritter471's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Dallas
Country: United States
Posts: 7,719
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Kritter471
Neal is an RFA and in a completely different situation as far as leverage and expected contract progression. Comparing RFA and UFA offers and contracts is rather silly. Also, I don't think he's arbitration eligible since he's coming off an entry-level deal, but I could be wrong there.

Again, I'm very curious to see how the contract is structured in terms of money.


Last edited by Kritter471: 03-01-2010 at 06:04 PM.
Kritter471 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2010, 05:58 PM
  #28
hairylikebear
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\|\\
 
hairylikebear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Houston
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 2,013
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kritter471 View Post
Also, I don't think he's arbitration eligible since he's coming off an entry-level deal, but I could be wrong there.
Actually, it's after four years in the league, but you're still right that he won't be arbitration eligible. That seems sort of silly, considering that's the only leverage an RFA has, except maybe holding out, but that never happens in hockey.

hairylikebear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2010, 06:06 PM
  #29
Hull Fan
trou du cul rapide
 
Hull Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Arlington, TX
Country: Albania
Posts: 5,804
vCash: 500
The issue is you've pigeon holed Neal. He doesn't deserve more money than Loui but he should get far more than Ott which puts him right around 4 million. Now you've tied up 35 million in real dollars, don't have a goalie signed and still need Grossman, Neal, Wandell, and a 4th line signed. How are you going to make that work with 10 million dollars and improve the defense? You're not unless someone else is traded. Its poor decision making any way you slice it with a team on a strict budget. Especially since 3 million of that has to go to Lehtonen and then another 4 million will probably go to Neal. Not much is left for the rest.

Hull Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2010, 06:07 PM
  #30
Kritter471
Registered User
 
Kritter471's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Dallas
Country: United States
Posts: 7,719
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Kritter471
Quote:
Originally Posted by hairylikebear View Post
Actually, it's after four years in the league, but you're still right that he won't be arbitration eligible. That seems sort of silly, considering that's the only leverage an RFA has, except maybe holding out, but that never happens in hockey.
It used to happen, but the last CBA eliminated a lot of the holdout leverage by saying players who weren't signed by December had to sit out the whole year.

RFA's aren't supposed to have a lot of leverage. That's the design of both the capped entry-level deals and the RFA system in general. In return for a team drafting and developing a player (and sinking resources into drafting and developing a lot of players that don't work out), that player is tied to the team with the team having contract leverage for a number of years.

The biggest leverage an RFA has is the threat of an offer sheet.

Kritter471 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2010, 06:10 PM
  #31
piqued
Global Moderator
 
piqued's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Dallas
Country: United States
Posts: 31,760
vCash: 50
Which is a very real possibility for Neal if he doesn't get signed.

piqued is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2010, 06:15 PM
  #32
Kritter471
Registered User
 
Kritter471's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Dallas
Country: United States
Posts: 7,719
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Kritter471
HF - You continue to miss the key difference that Neal is an RFA, not a UFA. You cannot compare Ott's contract to his to establish a baseline because it's an entirely different set of circumstances. Heck, in arbitration, even though that obviously doesn't apply here, UFA contracts are not allowed to be used as "comparables" (at least, this was true at one point - I'm having great difficulty finding out what it is). The Stars have no leverage with Ott. They have all the leverage with Neal.

Improving the defense was always going to come via a trade involving a defenseman, which sends some salary out. There's simply not enough roster room without moving someone. Everyone is either signed or an RFA that's likely to return.

Piqued - possible, but that was possible without the Ott contract as well, and the amount would be what the other team was willing to part with picks wise, not based on what Ott signed for today. This didn't drive up Neal's asking price because his leverage (in regards to what offer sheets he's likely to receive) didn't change.

Kritter471 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2010, 06:23 PM
  #33
Frozen Failure
Best Threadkiller
 
Frozen Failure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,760
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Frozen Failure Send a message via Yahoo to Frozen Failure
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hull Fan View Post
The issue is you've pigeon holed Neal. He doesn't deserve more money than Loui but he should get far more than Ott which puts him right around 4 million. Now you've tied up 35 million in real dollars, don't have a goalie signed and still need Grossman, Neal, Wandell, and a 4th line signed. How are you going to make that work with 10 million dollars and improve the defense? You're not unless someone else is traded. Its poor decision making any way you slice it with a team on a strict budget. Especially since 3 million of that has to go to Lehtonen and then another 4 million will probably go to Neal. Not much is left for the rest.
Then the defense doesn't get improved unless we move someone.

I'd offer Neal Ott's contract. 3 mil/year for 3 to 4 years. Puts him to the edge of RFA status, and gives us his service on a reasonable deal.

The only paranoid issue is the internal budget, and that might not even be there next year. So let's calm down about the lack of real dollars to be spent and pretend our owner isn't a drunk.

The Ott contract is not as earth shatteringly bad as you guys might think.

Frozen Failure is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2010, 06:27 PM
  #34
Kritter471
Registered User
 
Kritter471's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Dallas
Country: United States
Posts: 7,719
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Kritter471
And with the internal budget, it matters far more what the salary is and less what the cap hit is, which is why I'm so curious to see the year-by-year breakdown. If it's $2.3-$3-$3-$3.5, that's the fourth-liner HF was talking about for next year's team. It could be just $2.95 million per year, but I suspect not.

Kritter471 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2010, 06:33 PM
  #35
Hull Fan
trou du cul rapide
 
Hull Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Arlington, TX
Country: Albania
Posts: 5,804
vCash: 500
Hello! Kritter, there's this thing called an offer sheet. Does anyone believe that if the Stars offer Neal 3.5 million that he wouldn't accept 4.5 from some other club? Neal has great value to several teams around the league. Minnesota desperately needs scoring. Edmonton could build around Neal and Hemesky. Nashville would kill for a 2nd legit scoring winger along with Hornqvist. Um the Islanders could use another top six winger, especially if they can make the offer with the 2011 draft pick.

Neal is in a position to demand more because he has great value. He honestly has a far better bargaining position than Ott had.

Hull Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2010, 06:40 PM
  #36
Kritter471
Registered User
 
Kritter471's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Dallas
Country: United States
Posts: 7,719
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Kritter471
Neal's bargaining position did not changed based on what Ott signed today. Offer sheets are based on what teams are willing to give up picks/money-wise for a player and not on "comparable" deals. If those teams may be willing to give Neal $4.5 million, but that has nothing to do with what happened today. They would have been willing to do so had the Stars traded Ott or let him walk at the end of the season.

Neal has less leverage because he's dependent on those offer sheets (which he and his agent, per the CBA, can't seek out) and because the Stars own his rights regardless if he signs on the dotted line or not, and they will be compensated for him being an RFA either through his play next season or draft picks from the team that gives him an offer sheet. The Stars can't walk away empty-handed like they could have if he were a UFA, where he could feel "insulted" by the first offer or whatever.

FYI - here are the draft picks in question for the two groups of offer sheet numbers being bandied about here. These are from the 08-09 season.

$2,615,623 - $3,923,437 = 1st and 3rd round pick
$3,923,437 - $5,231,249 = 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round pick

Kritter471 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2010, 06:40 PM
  #37
hairylikebear
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\|\\
 
hairylikebear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Houston
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 2,013
vCash: 500
I'm the one that left out the offer sheet, but since it's so rare, and the compensation for a $4.5 mil offer sheet is 4 picks (2 first rounders), I'm not so worried that it's going to affect the negotiations whatsoever.

hairylikebear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2010, 06:47 PM
  #38
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,557
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kritter471 View Post
Neal is an RFA and in a completely different situation as far as leverage and expected contract progression. Comparing RFA and UFA offers and contracts is rather silly. Also, I don't think he's arbitration eligible since he's coming off an entry-level deal, but I could be wrong there.

Again, I'm very curious to see how the contract is structured in terms of money.
IMO the difference in quality of player between Neal and Ott easily makes up for the difference in leverage between RFA and UFA.

txomisc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2010, 07:08 PM
  #39
piqued
Global Moderator
 
piqued's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Dallas
Country: United States
Posts: 31,760
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kritter471 View Post
Neal's bargaining position did not changed based on what Ott signed today. Offer sheets are based on what teams are willing to give up picks/money-wise for a player and not on "comparable" deals. If those teams may be willing to give Neal $4.5 million, but that has nothing to do with what happened today.
Oh, I disagree. One of the league's charity cases just became a more attractive target to be offer sheet-ed due to their now disadvantaged ability to match.

piqued is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2010, 07:10 PM
  #40
hairylikebear
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\|\\
 
hairylikebear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Houston
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 2,013
vCash: 500
Here are some comparable second contracts:

David Krejč (3 years, $3.75 mil) Boston
Kris Versteeg (3 years, $3.083 mil) Chicago
Andrei Kostitsyn (3 years, $3.25 mil) Montreal

I really doubt Neal gets more than any of those 3.

hairylikebear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2010, 07:17 PM
  #41
Kritter471
Registered User
 
Kritter471's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Dallas
Country: United States
Posts: 7,719
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Kritter471
Given that the "charity case" issue is going to be resolved by August , lest creditors take Hicks to court, I highly doubt this move impairs their ability to sign Neal at any sort of not-obscene offer sheet, and that's before we figure out if the contract is backloaded.

Kritter471 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2010, 07:42 PM
  #42
________
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 4,643
vCash: 181
Send a message via AIM to ________ Send a message via MSN to ________
A full NTC for Ott, wow.
Salary structure $2.1 million, $3.3 m, $3.2m and $3.2 m.

________ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2010, 07:44 PM
  #43
Dave Karp
Registered User
 
Dave Karp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,697
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by starsfan4ever View Post
I think it's sad. I've become a huge fan of Jack Johnson while watching him in the Olympics.
Really? I thought he played very poorly. In particular the gold medal game where he iced the puck at least 3 times trying to make home run passes. He's a great talent, but his head just isn't there (right now anyways).


As for Ott, he is slightly overpaid. But I like what he brings to the table and I'm glad to see him locked up.

Dave Karp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2010, 07:45 PM
  #44
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,557
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ________ View Post
A full NTC for Ott, wow.
Salary structure $2.1 million, $3.3 m, $3.2m and $3.2 m.
thats a great idea, completely eliminate your flexibility. NTCs should be reserved for really good players.

txomisc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2010, 07:55 PM
  #45
vofty
Registered User
 
vofty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: TX
Posts: 3,410
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ________ View Post
A full NTC for Ott, wow.
Salary structure $2.1 million, $3.3 m, $3.2m and $3.2 m.
WTF Joe giving Ott a NTC??

vofty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2010, 08:03 PM
  #46
Kritter471
Registered User
 
Kritter471's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Dallas
Country: United States
Posts: 7,719
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Kritter471
Like the backloading a lot. That should solve people's issues about the internal budget for next year. Not sure I like the NTC, but *shrugs*

Where'd you get that info, Jason?

Kritter471 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2010, 08:07 PM
  #47
piqued
Global Moderator
 
piqued's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Dallas
Country: United States
Posts: 31,760
vCash: 50
Nieuwendyk basically just caved in to him unless Ott actually was originally insisting on the 3.8 million range.

Although you could say the NTC doesn't matter much since Ott with this new contract is not a very appealing asset to other teams anyway.

piqued is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2010, 08:11 PM
  #48
txomisc
Registered User
 
txomisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,557
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by piqued1457 View Post
Nieuwendyk basically just caved in to him unless Ott actually was originally insisting on the 3.8 million range.

Although you could say the NTC doesn't matter much since Ott with this new contract is not a very appealing asset to other teams anyway.
good point. He most likely went from having great trade value around the league to very little.

txomisc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2010, 08:27 PM
  #49
future consideration
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Niagara Falls, NY
Posts: 733
vCash: 500
Does Ott's signing and Neal's future contract make Morrow available? Probably more so in the summer?

future consideration is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2010, 08:27 PM
  #50
________
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 4,643
vCash: 181
Send a message via AIM to ________ Send a message via MSN to ________
Quote:
Originally Posted by piqued1457 View Post
Nieuwendyk basically just caved in to him unless Ott actually was originally insisting on the 3.8 million range.
Yeah, Nieuwendyk caved I'm guessing he didn't like the trade offers he was receiving.

________ 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 02:38 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.