nfreeman

Dude -- you do understand that there is a salary cap, yes? And that every dollar that is spent on player X is a dollar that is not available to be spent on player Y? Exactly -- there will always be budget teams with plenty of cap space who, if bribed sufficiently with other assets, will take on a player with a lower cash cost. But I've seen some very nice things about KO's fancystats -- do you disagree? Quite possibly, but the risk for the last couple of years is mitigated by the tradeability of his contract due to front-loading.

Both of your statements are true, and fair -- and he needs to understand them and act accordingly. His failure to do so doesn't make him a bad guy, but it could do substantial harm to his career and income -- so it's very much in his interest to figure it out.

The bolded should probably be revised to say "...can't go to Chippewa and stay out until 3:00 AM, when most of who's left are either wasted or skeezy, and not get messed with." He should know by now that the risk curve after midnight looks like a hockey stick.

As always, the question is whether it will happen, not whether you want it to happen/not happen. I voted "yes," although I have no idea what it will be. I just think GMTM knows his team isn't currently where he wants it to be, and he doesn't believe in sitting back and hoping it will get better on its own.

Right, but my point is that he gets $68MM for 8 years from TB, less taxes, as opposed to $84MM for 7 years from Buffalo/Toronto, less taxes. So, if we are determining the best economic move from Stamkos' perspective, we have to remember that the Buffalo/Toronto deal would be 7 years, after which he'd be able to sign another contract under which he'd be paid additional amounts for that 8th year. The calculator that WBOE linked to compared the 7-year Buffalo/Toronto deals to the 8-year TB deal -- not the 7-year Toronto/Buffalo deals plus a hypothetical 8th year.

This is fair, but at the same time they are both good, young, all-around defensemen who are/were RFAs. I agree that Krug's numbers justify a higher contract than Risto's do.

Another solid Risto comparable.

OK -- I just listened to the interview. Laraque said that an agent called GMTM to inquire about one of the agent's clients, a forward, and that GMTM told him in response that the Sabres were devoting all of their attention first to Stamkos, so GMTM couldn't have a serious conversation about the agent's client. Then, GMTM allegedly told the agent that the Sabres are looking to unload Kane. That agent then relayed the conversation to Laraque. This sounds pretty far-fetched to me -- I don't see why in the world GMTM would offer that up to an agent -- but I can totally see a different GM planting that with the agent, or the agent fabricating it to advance his clients' interests.

Well yes -- I am assuming that he would be worth at least $5MM as a 33-year-old. I recognize that this is a questionable assumption -- but I can also see him getting more than that per year on a short-term deal.

I'd like Backes, but have no interest in a deal longer than 2 years for him -- and I think someone will give him 4 years. I think Nash is now my preferred target for a forward upgrade -- he's a proven scorer and the risk is limited as he's only under contract for another 2 years. I'd still be happy with a trade for Fowler, but am skeptical in light of market costs for defensemen.

I'm hoping that this is classic Canadian hockey media frenzied rumormongering, and I think it's at least 50/50 that that is the case, but I certainly have to acknowledge the possibility that it is true. It's also quite possible that it's untrue and planted by a rival GM.

Thanks. Again, though, the extra year needs to be considered -- that's probably at least another $5MM for NYS.

Interesting.

No chance.

I don't think the bolded is accurate. Stamkos probably confirmed that Toronto and Buffalo were willing to pay him $12MM x 7 years, and he already knew that TB was willing to pay him $8.5MM x 8 years. The tax differences between NYS and FLA do not make up for the $16MM difference in total contract value or for the extra year.

Me too. I'd be fine with signing Soupy for 2 years at a respectable salary, but that's a different kettle of fish.

Stamkos just signed up for exactly that.

The bonus structure might've been one of the concessions Stammer was trying to wring from TB.

I kinda doubt that Anaheim would match, say, a $7MM x 6 years offer sheet for Lindholm -- but I'm a bit skeptical that GMTM is going to tender any offer sheets. I also think if GMTM were to offer that to Lindholm, it would be pretty much impossible to get Risto to agree to a bridge deal, which might affect GMTM's thinking. Also, I wish RFA offer sheets were widespread, as they are in the NBA. Yet another operational item the NBA does better than the NHL.

Here's a question: since Stammer signed for the same deal that TB offered him months ago, what was the point of the whole soap opera? Was he trying to get TB to increase their offer?

Likely but not certain -- it's also quite possible he'll still love playing hockey for a living and love playing and living in Montreal (which is a great city and a great hockey city with a great arena). And maybe the next CBA will allow a more forgiving buyout.

Weber is certainly past his absolute peak, and likely will decline a bit each year. And PK is in his prime and will be for a few more years. But I think Weber's 30s will be a lot like Pronger's pre-concussion 30s -- he will be a major force and play a ton of minutes in all situations (which was the case with Pronger until he sustained a debilitating concussion at age 37).

This is what I was thinking of. That is insane. It doesn't really factor into evaluating the trade, but is a shocker all the same.

Well, the "not as good" isn't really an objective truth, and we don't know the Habs' motivation. The Habs will take a hit if Weber retires early? Or are you saying that the Habs will take a hit if PK retires early?

This is a heckuva deal. Weber is one of the best players of the last generation and one of the best defensemen of all time. He's a first-ballot HOFer. He's great on both ends, very tough and a great leader. He's been in the NHL for 10 non-lockout seasons and played 78 or more games in 8 of them -- and scored 15 goals or more in all 8 (including 20 goals last year). PK has scored 15 goals exactly once in his 6 non-lockout seasons. Weber is about to turn 31, while PK just turned 27. PK is unquestionably a better skater than Weber at this point, and probably better carrying the puck. But don't sleep on Weber's playmaking skills -- in the last 7 non-lockout seasons, Weber had 30 assists or more in 6 of them (and had 27 assists the other time). Weber is also a true horse, playing over 25 min per game each of the last 6 years. For one playoff run, I'd rather have Weber. For the next 2 seasons, I'd rather have Weber. PK's NMC is going live in 2 days, and he's going to make $9MM per year for the next 6 years. If the Habs organization was concerned about PK's behavior/commitment/leadership/health/other -- it was now or never. I'm not ready to call this a bad move for the Habs. One other point: I think Weber's contract was signed before the current CBA. It includes $1MM annual salaries for each of the last 3 seasons -- when he will be turning 38, 39 and 40. If he retires at 39 -- I think Nashville gets hit with a cap penalty of some kind. Can anyone confirm?