Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, Taro T said:

Thingisif he's 37 when the contract is due to end then he'll be 34 when it starts & an early retirement as the face of the franchise doesn't hit into the cap.  Giving a 1 or 2 year deal forces the team onto the hook later to get that extra year put on.

Probably just looking to "do him a solid" for having waived his NMC last off-season.

Don't see this as big an oops as others are seeing.  Ymmv.

What choice did he have? Either waive it and start somewhere else where you can be the face of a franchise, or sit behind Matt Murray all year.

Even if you wanted to do him a solid, overpaying players for past performances is a surefire way to end up mismanaging all of your assets. Looking at you, Chicago 

Posted
11 minutes ago, WildCard said:

What choice did he have? Either waive it and start somewhere else where you can be the face of a franchise, or sit behind Matt Murray all year.

Even if you wanted to do him a solid, overpaying players for past performances is a surefire way to end up mismanaging all of your assets. Looking at you, Chicago 

How do you figure the Knights wouldn't have taken Murray if he didn't waive the NMC?  Murray would've been snagged in a heartbeat if not for the Pens side deal & McFleury playing nice.

Posted

 

Plus, this deal basically guarantees that his retirement years will be spent in Vegas much as Perreault's eventually ended up in Buffalo after reconciling w/ the team.

Posted
38 minutes ago, Taro T said:

How do you figure the Knights wouldn't have taken Murray if he didn't waive the NMC?  Murray would've been snagged in a heartbeat if not for the Pens side deal & McFleury playing nice.

Huh? The Pens protected Murray. They didn't protect Fleury

6 minutes ago, erickompositör72 said:

He earned that contract. He played unbelievably. I'm sure he's a major draw for the new franchise. Don't understand the flack.

Again though you pay for future, not past performance

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
19 minutes ago, WildCard said:

Again though you pay for future, not past performance

Two way street.  Players have also grossly failed to meet expectations when paid based on potential or unproven expectations.

When a player's good, but might be bad, it's risky.  When a player's bad, but might be good, it's risky.

 

Gotta pay somebody sometime.

Posted
19 minutes ago, WildCard said:

Huh? The Pens protected Murray. They didn't protect Fleury

Again though you pay for future, not past performance

Yes, they did.  If he didn't waive the NMC, then the Pens would have been REQUIRED to protect Fleury.  And then the K-nig-hits choose Murray.

Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, Taro T said:

Yes, they did.  If he didn't waive the NMC, then the Pens would have been REQUIRED to protect Fleury.  And then the K-nig-hits choose Murray.

So he would have screwed over the Pens. How is that realistically an option for him?

'Hey, thanks for all the Cups guys, but go fck yourself. By the way, can't wait to play here next year!'

Edited by WildCard
Posted
Just now, WildCard said:

So he would have screwed over the Pens. How is that realistically an option for him?

'Hey, thanks for all the Cups guys, but go fck yourself. By the way, can't wait to play here next year!'

What were they going to do if he didn't waive it?  Hold their breath until they turned blue?  Keep him on the roster but play the guy that ended up Murray's backup last year?  (Sorry, can't recall the kid's name at present.)  Cut him to immediate FA waivers & then take the cap hit for 4 years?

How would his staying in da -burgh have been screwing the Pens?  It's not like he's Robin friggin' Lehner. Pittsburgh still would have been a too team last year w/out Murray.  And, if the Pens didn't want to risk something like that happening, they didn't HAVE to give him a NMC.  "That bastage!  How DARE he make them honor their contractual obligation." :lol:

 

Posted
1 minute ago, Taro T said:

What were they going to do if he didn't waive it?  Hold their breath until they turned blue?  Keep him on the roster but play the guy that ended up Murray's backup last year?  (Sorry, can't recall the kid's name at present.)  Cut him to immediate FA waivers & then take the cap hit for 4 years?

How would his staying in da -burgh have been screwing the Pens?  It's not like he's Robin friggin' Lehner. Pittsburgh still would have been a too team last year w/out Murray.  And, if the Pens didn't want to risk something like that happening, they didn't HAVE to give him a NMC.  "That bastage!  How DARE he make them honor their contractual obligation." :lol:

If waiving his NMC did a solid for the Pens, how is doing the exact opposite not screwing them? ?

If he didn't waive it I'm sure they would have found some way to play hard ball with him

Posted
11 minutes ago, WildCard said:

If waiving his NMC did a solid for the Pens, how is doing the exact opposite not screwing them? ?

If he didn't waive it I'm sure they would have found some way to play hard ball with him

Please, do tell what that would entail.  Perhaps giving him a tub & an outboard Evinrude rather than a jacuzzi?  :lol:

 

And, to the non-bolded: SERIOUSLY!?!?!?  Making them man up & follow the stipulation that THEY HAD WILLINGLY AGREED TO is screwing them over?  Good thing your specialty is bird law & not contractual law. ;)

Posted
2 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Please, do tell what that would entail.  Perhaps giving him a tub & an outboard Evinrude rather than a jacuzzi?  :lol:

And, to the non-bolded: SERIOUSLY!?!?!?  Making them man up & follow the stipulation that THEY HAD WILLINGLY AGREED TO is screwing them over?  Good thing your specialty is bird law & not contractual law. ?

Hahah I mean at this point I don't even know what we're arguing. All I know is that money is too much for a 33 year old MaF

Posted

I think the Pens would've bought out Fleury before they let Murray walk in the expansion draft. But the Penguins interest in moving Fleury predated Vegas.

Posted

@MikeKellyNHL
The Calgary Flames appear to be closing in on an extension with RFA, Elias Lindholm. Details being worked on but expectation is 5 or 6 years at around $5M per.

@MikeKellyNHL
Agreed. Hinostroza is a dynamic skater and passer. Per 60 minutes, he ranked top 25 in controlled zone entries, between Panarin and Nylander. Great numbers completing passes to contested areas. Classic example of a guy ready to pop with increased role.

Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, WildCard said:

Again though you pay for future, not past performance

You have some inside information that his game is about to drop off?

He's not a player who relies on skating/speed. Compete level plays such an important role in that position, and his level was off-the-charts during their playoff run. I'll bet on his contract paying off

Edited by erickompositör72
Posted
15 hours ago, WildCard said:

 

Again though you pay for future, not past performance

 

Two thoughts here.

1. Noone has a crystal ball.

2. The market sets price and terms.  Demand players get deals that involve risk.  Players with limited demand get the safe deals.

Posted
1 hour ago, erickompositör72 said:

You have some inside information that his game is about to drop off?

He's not a player who relies on skating/speed. Compete level plays such an important role in that position, and his level was off-the-charts during their playoff run. I'll bet on his contract paying off

I don't need inside information to know that at his age he is much, much more likely to get worse than to get better. And considering he hasn't been great for years prior to Vegas, I really don't see the point in making him the 4th highest goalie in the league

https://hockey-graphs.com/2014/03/21/how-well-do-goalies-age-a-look-at-a-goalie-aging-curve/

Do you have some sort of stat that measures his compete level?

 

Posted

The only way I understand the Fleury deal is if it was partially done for business reasons.

It will be interesting to see what the home crowd is like when the team comes down to earth — which I think it will this season.

I hope that they continue or flourish, even with middling success.

Posted
7 hours ago, That Aud Smell said:

The only way I understand the Fleury deal is if it was partially done for business reasons.

It will be interesting to see what the home crowd is like when the team comes down to earth — which I think it will this season.

I hope that they continue or flourish, even with middling success.

Nah Karlsson will continue to shoot at 23%... lol

  • Haha (+1) 2
Posted

Folks have been anticipating the demise of the Knights since their first win last season, myself included. 

I think they'll be good again next season.

Posted
41 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Folks have been anticipating the demise of the Knights since their first win last season, myself included. 

I think they'll be good again next season.

Sure but they had multiple players exceed career averages. That's hard to maintain. They'll be good but not cup final good. 

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...