BoltProspects Community Forums  

Go Back   BoltProspects Community Forums > Hockey Talk > Channelside

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #231  
Old 06-30-2013, 06:00 AM
BurnTHalO's Avatar
BurnTHalO BurnTHalO is online now
Dan Ellis' Money Problems
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Perrysburg, OH
Posts: 2,791
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat664422 View Post
Missing out on Bishop in 2012 - It would have take a 2nd round pick or more then and he was more of an unknown at that time. Yzerman got him for an undrafted player and a 4th round pick after seeing, and avoided losing a 1st-2nd pick to do it. We'll have to see who turns out to be the better player in the NHL.
Saying an undrafted player is a cop out. Thw guy was an AHL MVP. Where you are drafted doesn't mean a lot when they have accomplished something. Not sure where I stand with what mustang is saying, but he got him for yhe reigning ahl mvp, forget the draft status.
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 06-30-2013, 07:59 AM
Donnie D's Avatar
Donnie D Donnie D is online now
Cooper's Law
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sarasota
Posts: 4,458
Default

All I hear on these boards - too soft, no toughness. So there is a problem when we trade one of the smurfs to fill a gap?

We still have the current AHL MVP - another smallish guy who doesn't have chronic health problems.
__________________
I know the voices in my head aren't real..... but sometimes their ideas are just absolutely awesome!
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 06-30-2013, 08:06 AM
BurnTHalO's Avatar
BurnTHalO BurnTHalO is online now
Dan Ellis' Money Problems
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Perrysburg, OH
Posts: 2,791
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie D View Post
All I hear on these boards - too soft, no toughness. So there is a problem when we trade one of the smurfs to fill a gap?

We still have the current AHL - another smallish guy who doesn't have chronic health problems.
I don't disagree just pointing out saying we just gave up an undrafted free agent is making it a bit simplistic.
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 06-30-2013, 08:36 AM
Bolthed's Avatar
Bolthed Bolthed is offline
Guy Boucher's One-Three-One
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Gainesvegas!
Posts: 2,412
Default

Teams line up to talk to Lecavalier on Saturday -- Philadelphia Flyers, Anaheim Ducks, Dallas Stars, St. Louis Blues and Toronto Maple Leafs

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...alier/2476287/

Red Wings to meet with Lecavalier on Sunday

http://www.freep.com/article/2013062...S05/306290045/

Last edited by Bolthed; 06-30-2013 at 09:49 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 06-30-2013, 09:21 AM
Bolthed's Avatar
Bolthed Bolthed is offline
Guy Boucher's One-Three-One
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Gainesvegas!
Posts: 2,412
Default

And since there was an avalanche of dumb that hit this thread last night, here are some points to consider in case you didn't know or forgot ...

• Yzerman turned Steve Downie, a very flawed player, into a first-round pick and ultimately one of the top goaltending prospects in the world.
• Lecavalier's contract was untradeable. Period.
• Yzerman overpaid for defensemen. I agree. Now how about we all move on? Because every team and every GM has to do this if they don't grow their own. The same people who shout threats into the air that the entire fanbase is going to boycott the team if holes aren't filled somehow can't be satisfied when holes are filled with players who (GASP!) cost money in a competitive market.
• Yzerman and Vinik indicated this week that they not only were planning to amnesty Vinny for quite some time, but Vinik may have even helped guide the amnesty rules (in part) for that very reason. It was anything but unplanned or desperate.
• Like him or not, Teddy Purcell is a legitimate scoring-line forward (unlike some other top 6 wings were in the Lightning uniform). There is no way of knowing if Detroit would have taken him in trade for Kyle Quincey. Oh, and Purcell still has fine value to the TBL on the ice and as a trade chip ... whether he changes his style one iota or not.
• Ben Bishop was a relatively unknown commodity (13 NHL games, 8 starts) when the Senators traded a 2nd for him at the deadline in 2012. Contrast that with Lindback who had 38 NHL games and 28 starts by the summer of 2012 when Yzerman gave up 2 2nds in a draft that he had loaded up in order to fill holes with a trade or two. ... After Lindback disappointed and got hurt, and after Bishop posted great numbers in 23 games (21 starts) for Ottawa, then Yzerman dealt from a position of organizational strength.
• The timing of the Bolts' need in net cannot be looked at in hindsight. You just can't look at the Bernier trade in the summer of 2013 (or even more ridiculously use a hypothetical Schneider trade) in order to say that the Lightning overpaid for Lindback ... ditto the Bishop trade at the deadline in 2013. Sorry, history doesn't work that way. One came chronologically after the other. Decisions do not have the benefit of context from future events -- in other words, there was no crystal ball that could have told Yzerman not to trade for Bishop because Bernier would be dealt months later. Ugh. I'm not Pollyanna about Yzerman's moves all being right, but holy shit, you can't say they were wrong based on things that hadn't happened at the time!
• The Lightning's AHL team won the Calder Cup in Yzerman's second season. It was runner-up in his third. Do these statements really need any more explanation?
• The Lightning farm system began sending NHL-ready players up in Yzerman's third season. One of them, an undrafted Cory Conacher got off to a red-hot start and was a strong rookie of the year candidate before falling well of his early pace and becoming more of a pest than a scorer (a diminutive player with questionable long-term value). When he was traded for a starting goalie it could have been inferred that Yzerman believed he had a solid (if not better and/or at least more versatile) replacement in the equally undrafted and equally diminutive Tyler Johnson, who was named AHL MVP in April (one year after Conacher achieved the honor).

I'm sure several of you will contend with some of these points. I'm not foolish enough to think I can change your minds. I'm just hoping to stem the tide of stupid that is suddenly floating around here.
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 06-30-2013, 09:33 AM
RSchmitz's Avatar
RSchmitz RSchmitz is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,488
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BurnTHalO View Post
I don't disagree just pointing out saying we just gave up an undrafted free agent is making it a bit simplistic.
I was thinking the same thing burn. Technically st.louis is an undrafted free agent too....its an unfair description.
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 06-30-2013, 09:40 AM
RSchmitz's Avatar
RSchmitz RSchmitz is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,488
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolthed View Post
And since there was an avalanche of dumb that hit this thread last night, here are some points to consider in case you didn't know or forgot ...

Yzerman turned Steve Downie, a very flawed player, into a first-round pick and ultimately one of the top goaltending prospects in the world.
Lecavalier's contract was untradeable. Period.
Yzerman overpaid for defensemen. I agree. Now how about we all move on? Because every team and every GM has to do this if they don't grow their own. The same people who shout threats into the air that the entire fanbase is going to boycott the team if holes aren't filled somehow can't be satisfied when holes are filled with players who (GASP!) cost money in a competitive market.
Yzerman and Vinik indicated this week that they not only were planning to amnesty Vinny for quite some time, but Vinik may have even helped guide the amnesty rules (in part) for that very reason. It was anything but unplanned or desperate.
Like him or not, Teddy Purcell is a legitimate scoring-line forward (unlike some other top 6 wings were in the Lightning uniform). There is no way of knowing if Detroit would have taken him in trade for Kyle Quincey. Oh, and Purcell still has fine value to the TBL on the ice and as a trade chip ... whether he changes his style one iota or not.
Ben Bishop was a relatively unknown commodity (13 NHL games, 8 starts) when the Senators traded a 2nd for him at the deadline in 2012. Contrast that with Lindback who had 38 NHL games and 28 starts by the summer of 2012 when Yzerman gave up 2 2nds in a draft that he had loaded up in order to fill holes with a trade or two. ... After Lindback disappointed and got hurt, and after Bishop posted great numbers in 23 games (21 starts) for Ottawa, then Yzerman dealt from a position of organizational strength.
The timing of the Bolts' need in net cannot be looked at in hindsight. You just can't look at the Bernier trade in the summer of 2013 (or even more ridiculously use a hypothetical Schneider trade) in order to say that the Lightning overpaid for Lindback ... ditto the Bishop trade at the deadline in 2013. Sorry, history doesn't work that way. One came chronologically after the other. Decisions do not have the benefit of context from future events -- in other words, there was no crystal ball that could have told Yzerman not to trade for Bishop because Bernier would be dealt months later. Ugh. I'm not Pollyanna about Yzerman's moves all being right, but holy shit, you can't say they were wrong based on things that hadn't happened at the time!
The Lightning's AHL team won the Calder Cup in Yzerman's second season. It was runner-up in his third. Do these statements really need any more explanation?
The Lightning farm system began sending NHL-ready players up in Yzerman's third season. One of them, an undrafted Cory Conacher got off to a red-hot start and was a strong rookie of the year candidate before falling well of his early pace and becoming more of a pest than a scorer (a diminutive player with questionable long-term value). When he was traded for a starting goalie it could have been inferred that Yzerman believed he had a solid (if not better and/or at least more versatile) replacement in the equally undrafted and equally diminutive Tyler Johnson, who was named AHL MVP in April (one year after Conacher achieved the honor).

I'm sure several of you will contend with some of these points. I'm not foolish enough to think I can change your minds. I'm just hoping to stem the tide of stupid that is suddenly floating around here.
I agree with all of this. It will be interesting to see if yzerman further leverages our forward depth into filling holes. Before the lecavalier buy out I thought for sure Purcell would be dealt for cap room. Now Im sure we keep him and Malone and deal one of the prospects instead.
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 06-30-2013, 09:42 AM
Bolthed's Avatar
Bolthed Bolthed is offline
Guy Boucher's One-Three-One
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Gainesvegas!
Posts: 2,412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSchmitz View Post
I was thinking the same thing burn. Technically st.louis is an undrafted free agent too....its an unfair description.
It's only unfair if you say we traded an undrafted free agent for a starting goalie. But if you say we traded an undrafted free agent who developed into an AHL MVP and NHL ROY candidate for a starting goalie it still makes note of the fact that Conacher was an asset we essentially created for free and then traded for something of value. Was Pat's initial post simplistic? Slanted? Sure. But there's a whole lot of context that informs the arguments here, including the cache of forward prospects who were racing up to the NHL in Conacher's wake.

We don't yet have the benefit of knowing what Cory (or Bishop) will turn out to be. We can only see what was at the time of the trade and what is right now. I can't speak for Ottawa, but I will say the Bolts appear to have made a smart move to fill a huge need with one of many forward prospects available.
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 06-30-2013, 01:30 PM
njbolt12's Avatar
njbolt12 njbolt12 is offline
Bingo Bob's Intermission Contest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,738
Send a message via AIM to njbolt12
Default

First off, excellent as always (yet sobering) stuff, Tim

Quote:
Originally Posted by Top Shelf View Post
I'm neither a lawyer, accountant nor financial wizard. But occasionally a couple of my last few remaining brain cells do happen to rub together. And that tiny friction pays 2. My little 2 is just this:

Assuming Vinny would have been willing to stay here for less money (after all, he's gonna play somewhere else now for about half), something is wrong when one man can't look across the table from another and say, "Look, I know I'm contracted to play for you for x amount; but WE AGREE it's now beyond obvious it's too much. I'm already set for life, and I just don't want to jump ship and go play somewhere else. Let's us two men stand up here, clasp hands and AGREE to adjust the amount to a level that lets me stay here and lets you add the other players we'll need to succeed again." A contract is nothing more than an agreement between parties; something is disturbingly wrong when the same two parties aren't allowed to make another agreement to effect a necessary adjustment. I won't name any names, but I suspect the initials of that something which is disturbingly wrong are CBA.

Now one of the capmasters with an ineffable grasp of the intricate details will type up and explain why this has to be. My proactive reply is, "It's still wrong if two men aren't allowed to agree on something they want to agree on."
Based on my experience I might be two out of those three, but it'll still a tricky issue to tackle Anyway, I totally agree with the spirit of your post. It would have been a plus if, in addition to compliance buyouts, the new CBA allowed downward adjustment of those "special" contracts. Obviously, that would be yet another item the dysfunctional owners / PA would have to agree upon, but considering how the owners seems to still hold more sway at the table, you'd think that MIGHT be something they would go for. After all, it would be cheaper to renegotiate a problem contract, rather than buy said player out and then pay to replace them.

One hurdle (of several) to this I could see the PA contesting that if contracts can be negotiated downwards, then why not upwards? It's also another tool that could be used to pressure players, even if both have to agree to a modification. However, unlike the NFL, NHL contracts are guaranteed and players obviously have taken advantage of huge guaranteed payouts in free agency. It would be nice to see this option available, but you have to get two sides who are never at labor peace to sign off on it. I personally wonder what GMs / owners / players would say if you polled them on it.

It's a shame, because unlike the Sniders and Sathers who've slung money around on free agents like drunken sailors on shore leave and were then given get out of jail (cap) free cards in the new CBA, Tampa just used a buyout on a problematic contract that happened to belong to a loyal, homegrown, fan favorite who probably would have taken less, given the current situation, to finish out his career here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mustang View Post
Question for someone more knowledgeable as the dust settles on this: how do the early retirement issues in the CBA impact a situation where a player is bought out (non-compliance) and then retires X months later without signing a new contract? Would the league consider that circumvention (some kind of private retirement agreement b/w player and team) and penalize the team?
Not certain on the details Mustang, but I'd wager that if this happened, the team would still be on the hook for the non-compliance buyout hit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolthed View Post
"The coat of many hates" ... I love that.

Tim, there's just nothing you can say to some people. They insist that they're speaking for the entire fanbase when they say that no one's going to show up in the building anymore.

And I love this argument against Matt Carle. Yes, we overpaid to get him ... just like any team would have had to do. He's exactly the kind of necessary player to bridge your franchise to the time when the farm should spit out a cheap replacement. Then -- guess what? -- you trade Matt Carle!

What so many fans fail to grasp is that new brass always means serious changes, but very few GMs go nuclear and intentionally construct an Orlando Magic bottom-feeder. That is seriously stupid. No, when you take over a team in need of serious changes, you still try to put together a competitive roster and hope you contend for the playoffs long enough to keep up some league-average attendance figures. Yknow, entertain the season ticket holders. But you never take your eyes off the prize, and that means trading Steve Downies and cutting Vinny Lecavaliers like cold-blooded surgeons.

But forget all that shit. It's way more fun to panic and scream that the GM has no plan! The sky is falling!
I think nearly EVERYONE knows that Yzerman definitely has a plan, and can point to clear positive changes since he's taken over. But given that this move was such an emotional blow for a lot of fans, and one they're going to question (even if it was the right move), I think it's natural that you'd scrutinize decisions that you feel were the wrong ones and start to question whether we're heading in the right direction. It's just such a shock to the system. There are certainly things (some in hindsight) that I question Yzerman for doing, but I don't think every example in here was a mistake.

Your point about trying to be competitive while taking a long term view and building for the future is spot on.
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 06-30-2013, 01:44 PM
njbolt12's Avatar
njbolt12 njbolt12 is offline
Bingo Bob's Intermission Contest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,738
Send a message via AIM to njbolt12
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSchmitz View Post
The problem with downie was his reputation hurt the team on too many nights. The problem with the downie trade was that his physical presence was never adequately replaced
This. I liked Downie a lot actually, but he just wasn't going to get a fair shake with the refs based on his history. Shame. We do need some more sandpaper, though.

Getting a first for him (which turned into Vasi) was a good move, however.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mustang View Post
Seems like a good guy off the ice by all accounts, and a beloved teammate. But if you've got a wicked wrist shot and a pass-first attitude, change the attitude. If you're a one-trick pony (and a heck of a trick it is), don't be streaky. If you're god forbid a streaky one-trick pony, try to get better at other parts of your game - two-way play, physicality, consistent effort shift in and shift out (don't be a space cadet). I will give him credit that it seems to me that he's improved in the area of puck possession the last year or two, but I want more at approaching 5 million per. At the very least, shoot more often - be an asshole, Teddy, please. The puck belongs to you when you're on the ice - not anybody else.

I'm hopeful Cooper will help him elevate his game.
All things considered, I think Teddy's positives far outweigh his negatives. He's got a little bit of the Vinny "curse" in him that you see and expect more than he gives you, especially when you've seen him crank it up a notch when it counts (remember the Boston series?). I wouldn't say he's overpaid, either, at his current level of production, especially when you look at what some other top line / top 6 forwards have gotten.

I also hope Cooper can help him reach his ceiling, which might be another 10-20 points with more consistency.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2005-2008, BoltProspects.com. All Rights Reserved.