Where's the $$ Coming From?

[Rayzor32]

I know he is a VERY unreliable source, but for whatever reason, I check out Eklund's blog (and Spector's) from time to time. I love how he mentions us as buyers on a regular basis, despite our cap issues. The latest two are Chris Simon ($1MM) and Roman Hamrlik ($3.5MM) -- both would be fine additions, but since neither the Islanders nor Flames need Biron, how the hell would we be able to afford either one with our cap situation? Makes no sense..

[Bmwolf21]

That's why I like Spector's trade rumors - taken straight from the media, with his comments (usually a dose of reality) added in. Eklund seems to just throw stuff out there, like the posters on TSW...

[Rayzor32]

That's why I like Spector's trade rumors - taken straight from the media, with his comments (usually a dose of reality) added in. Eklund seems to just throw stuff out there, like the posters on TSW...

 

I agree -- although Spector's sources (like that guy from the Ottawa Sun) can be just about as reliable as Eklund!

 

I was intrigued by the Biron to Chicago rumor (hinges on The Bulin Wall being traded back to Tampa for Brad Richards). I would see us getting one of their young defenseman (Seabrook?) + Lalime to backup Miller..but I have a hard time seeing Darcy trade away Biron before the playoffs..I think he really wants the Biron security blanket for the stretch run...

[shrader]

Not the Seabrook stuff again. Chicago will never move him for Marty Biron unless we throw in someone like Stafford. And really, why would Chicago trade for an UFA goalie?

[Rayzor32]

Not the Seabrook stuff again. Chicago will never move him for Marty Biron unless we throw in someone like Stafford. And really, why would Chicago trade for an UFA goalie?

 

Ask Mr. Eklund..his sources indicate that they would negotiate a contract extension with him

[Bmwolf21]

Not the Seabrook stuff again. Chicago will never move him for Marty Biron unless we throw in someone like Stafford. And really, why would Chicago trade for an UFA goalie?

Although everything I've seen says that Seabrook is an untouchable, I'll entertain the thought for a second.

 

If Chicago were serious about moving Khabibulin (some reports have Tampa looking to bring him back, as Mark Denis hasn't exactly set "Hockey Bay, USA" afire) I could see them taking a flier on Marty. They could probably get him re-signed for a lot less than Nikolai's $6.75M salary, which would free them up for other moves in free agency.

 

The only problem I see is that the asking price for Seabrook would be higher than Marty + a prospect. I think it would take Marty and a young roster player (Kalinin, Kotalik, Roy, Pommer) + a prospect. If Seabrook is as good as advertised I would definitely consider that deal, but I'd be very careful about which prospects & players they wanted.

[Goodfella25]

I also tend to see Spector as the most reliable source out there for trade rumors. Especially since he always throws in the "weird internet rumor" to show he doesn't just buy anything he hears and make it sound like it's a legitimate rumor (like Eklund does).

 

Seabrook would be an amazing addition IMO but given Hawks GM Dale Tallon's recent talks with the media, he is "untouchable" or, in other words, we'd have to give up some promising talent of our own--Kotalik and Biron alone will not do it. And if it takes that much to pry Seabrook, then really I'd rather see us go after some veteran help on defense.

 

BTW, Khabibulin back to Tampa makes no sense at all, because there is no reason for Tampa to make the move. They want to reduce payroll, sure, but how does moving Richards, @ 7.8 MIL for Khabibulin, @ 6.75 MIL on a longer contract save Tampa money? Not only that, but Johan Holmqvist has come on strong for Tampa in goal (and for my fantasy team, for that matter) whereas the "Bulin Wall" has looked like a shell of his former self. Don't get it!

 

One more thing...TSN.ca has compiled their own list of "players rumored to be on the move"...check it out http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/feature/?fid=10913&hubname=

[shrader]

The only problem I see is that the asking price for Seabrook would be higher than Marty + a prospect. I think it would take Marty and a young roster player (Kalinin, Kotalik, Roy, Pommer) + a prospect. If Seabrook is as good as advertised I would definitely consider that deal, but I'd be very careful about which prospects & players they wanted.

 

Marty + Stafford for Seabrook and a late round pick would probably be about equal value. Seabrook's value is a bit higher since he's a defenseman, so Marty balances that out. Buffalo could probably squeeze a late round pick out of the deal too.

 

One problem though, neither team wants to move these guys. It will never even be discussed.

[Bmwolf21]

One more thing...TSN.ca has compiled their own list of "players rumored to be on the move"...check it out http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/feature/?fid=10913&hubname=

One thing that stuck out to me in reading that list: the number of soon-to-be UFAs that are rumored to be traded for a two-month rental, with the concept of a handshake agreement that they'll re-sign with their original team when they hit the market. I think that loophole needs to be closed - you shouldn't be able to steal a prospect or draft pick or whatever from some team and then get the player right back. I think the NBA has some sort of waiting period before a FA can return to his previous team, and I think it's a good thing.

[shrader]

One thing that stuck out to me in reading that list: the number of soon-to-be UFAs that are rumored to be traded for a two-month rental, with the concept of a handshake agreement that they'll re-sign with their original team when they hit the market. I think that loophole needs to be closed - you shouldn't be able to steal a prospect or draft pick or whatever from some team and then get the player right back. I think the NBA has some sort of waiting period before a FA can return to his previous team, and I think it's a good thing.

 

I don't have a problem with it. One serious problem with that kind of restriction comes to mind. What if that team is the only one interested in signing that free agent the following season? You'd be forcing that guy out of the league for a certain period of time. Yeah, this isn't very likely, but since it's plausible, that alone would probably stop it from ever happening.

[Bmwolf21]

Maybe that happens with Gary Roberts or Mike Keane, but how often would that happen with guys like Sundin, Tucker, etc.?

 

I just think the loophole devalues the concept and ruins the integrity of free agency. If Sundin gets traded, and has a handshake agreement to re-sign with Toronto, how does the market determine his value? What about teams looking to make a splash in free agency - trying to get better quickly? Maybe a team like Phoenix clears cap space so they can make a run at guys like Sundin and Bertuzzi, but they quickly re-sign with their original teams and now Phoenix has no one to go after.

 

As a compromise, though, I would offer the following solution - make the UFA clear some sort of UFA waivers before he can re-sign with his original team. Then he could clearly show that there were no other teams interested in signing him, and it would allow other suitors to stake their interest and make their offers.

[Goodfella25]

One thing that stuck out to me in reading that list: the number of soon-to-be UFAs that are rumored to be traded for a two-month rental, with the concept of a handshake agreement that they'll re-sign with their original team when they hit the market. I think that loophole needs to be closed - you shouldn't be able to steal a prospect or draft pick or whatever from some team and then get the player right back. I think the NBA has some sort of waiting period before a FA can return to his previous team, and I think it's a good thing.

 

 

Well it's like last year when Weight and Recchi went to Carolina only to return to their previous clubs this year. Recchi was less obvious about it, but Weight even said right after he was traded that he wanted to go back to St. Louis again. I guess I don't really have a problem with it, though, because the team that's getting the rental player/soon-to-be UFA knows they are taking a risk and throwing away a prospect and/or draft pick for some insurance come playoff time. Eventually it may come back to bite them.

[shrader]

Placing restrictions on and unrestricted free agent will never fly with the union.

 

I don't see any difference between what you're saying and when an UFA signs with anyone. I'm sure teams tried to free up some space to sign Chara last year, only to lose him to the Bruins. Or what about when an UFA re-signs with his original team? These guys are free to sign where ever they want. You're suggesting punishing the player for the actions of the team.

 

The team that rents the player has no problem with the situation, I don't see why anyone else should.

[Bmwolf21]

Placing restrictions on and unrestricted free agent will never fly with the union.

 

I don't see any difference between what you're saying and when an UFA signs with anyone. I'm sure teams tried to free up some space to sign Chara last year, only to lose him to the Bruins. Or what about when an UFA re-signs with his original team? These guys are free to sign where ever they want. You're suggesting punishing the player for the actions of the team.

 

The team that rents the player has no problem with the situation, I don't see why anyone else should.

Chara was on the market for almost 10 days (FA opened July 1, he signed July 12), so the comparison isn't the same. The league should have a problem with it, as it could affect the integrity of the FA process, and to be honest, might have to protect some teams from themselves.

 

I do see a difference, at least in theory. If a team clears space hoping to make a run at Drury, and he re-signs with Buffalo, then too bad. But if Buffalo trades Drury away and gets something in return for him, they shouldn't get first crack at signing him when he becomes a FA.

 

As for the union placing restrictions - I don't think that argument fits. The players union salaries can benefit greatly from guys hitting the market and getting the best possible deal available - not by signing immediately with the team that traded them away.

 

I guess I am in the minority here, but I just think that if you trade a player away and get something in return - draft pick, prospect, player - you shouldn't get first crack at re-signing the player once he hits the market. That's why I think clearing some sort of UFA waivers or making a traded UFA wait for a short waiting period before re-signing with his original team works. It allows other teams an opportunity to at least contact the FA and make some sort of offer, and the player having to wait a week won't seriously impact his chances of signing somewhere.

[shrader]

All teams (except the team he played for last) are able to contact the player at the same time.

 

Chara was just the first UFA from last year that came to mind. You're overanalyzing that one a bit.

[Bmwolf21]

All teams (except the team he played for last) are able to contact the player at the same time.

I guess no matter how you cut it, short of a lengthy waiting period before allowing the player to re-sign with his original team, there is little that can be done to stop these handshake deals from happening. That is, until some team trades for a potential UFA and tries to re-sign them, and finds out they have a handshake deal, and files a grievance for tampering.

 

Chara was just the first UFA from last year that came to mind. You're overanalyzing that one a bit.

Not sure what you mean. You provided an example, and I showed why that example didn't work.

 

What does it hurt to make the original team, who dealt the player away and received compensation, wait to try to re-sign the player?

[Taro T]

Chara was on the market for almost 10 days (FA opened July 1, he signed July 12), so the comparison isn't the same. The league should have a problem with it, as it could affect the integrity of the FA process, and to be honest, might have to protect some teams from themselves.

 

I do see a difference, at least in theory. If a team clears space hoping to make a run at Drury, and he re-signs with Buffalo, then too bad. But if Buffalo trades Drury away and gets something in return for him, they shouldn't get first crack at signing him when he becomes a FA.

 

As for the union placing restrictions - I don't think that argument fits. The players union salaries can benefit greatly from guys hitting the market and getting the best possible deal available - not by signing immediately with the team that traded them away.

 

I guess I am in the minority here, but I just think that if you trade a player away and get something in return - draft pick, prospect, player - you shouldn't get first crack at re-signing the player once he hits the market. That's why I think clearing some sort of UFA waivers or making a traded UFA wait for a short waiting period before re-signing with his original team works. It allows other teams an opportunity to at least contact the FA and make some sort of offer, and the player having to wait a week won't seriously impact his chances of signing somewhere.

The players (collectively) get the same $'s regardless of how those $'s are divvied up. They get 54-57% of leaguewide revenues depending upon how big those revenues are.

 

The Union will never go for the restriction you are proposing because there is nothing in it for them. (Or at least I can't come up with any benefit they gain by telling their membership in effect "if you are traded during the season prior to your becoming an UFA, you are not allowed to sign with that team until you have negotiated with everyone else and/or you clear some sort of a waiver system; so although you desperately want to be on a line with ____ or keep your kids in the same school they've been the last x years, you can't do it until everyone else has had a shot at you".) I don't know what you propose the league offer to the NHLPA to get them to give up this particular benefit.

 

I also don't see why, to use your example of the Sabres and Drury, the Sabres shouldn't get something of value for giving up something of value (the right to have Drury playing for them for the remainder of the season). Even if they are (in your example) planning on trying to re-sign him on July 2.

 

And technically, like Shrader said, the team that gave him up doesn't have 1st crack at him. The team that traded for him does. Once he's been traded, he can't negotiate with the team he left.

[shrader]

Not sure what you mean. You provided an example, and I showed why that example didn't work.

 

What does it hurt to make the original team, who dealt the player away and received compensation, wait to try to re-sign the player?

 

You brought up a situation where one team clears up cap space, hoping to make a run at a free agent. I mentioned an UFA who I'm sure several teams set as a high priority. They were out of luck on that one just like anyone who might have been interested in a player like Doug Weight last year. I don't see any difference in the two situations. One team wins in the free agency game, others lose.

[Bmwolf21]

The players (collectively) get the same $'s regardless of how those $'s are divvied up. They get 54-57% of leaguewide revenues depending upon how big those revenues are.

Not overall salaries, but how much Sundin gets will help set the market for both similar players and guys slotted as "lesser" talents, and will be used as a point of reference for arbitration. So the union would benefit not in total amount of $$ of leaguewide revenues, but in how that $$ gets distributed.

 

The Union will never go for the restriction you are proposing because there is nothing in it for them. (Or at least I can't come up with any benefit they gain by telling their membership in effect "if you are traded during the season prior to your becoming an UFA, you are not allowed to sign with that team until you have negotiated with everyone else and/or you clear some sort of a waiver system; so although you desperately want to be on a line with ____ or keep your kids in the same school they've been the last x years, you can't do it until everyone else has had a shot at you".) I don't know what you propose the league offer to the NHLPA to get them to give up this particular benefit.

I think you're exaggerating my example. I am not saying they need to be forced to negotiate with everyone, nor should they have to contact all the teams and see if they are interested. I just want to see the original team, who trades his rights away, have to wait a little before they can sign him back. Plus, the whole kids in the same schools or what line you're playing on aspects - while I sympathize with those concerns, I couldn't care less. That's one of the things you have to deal with in being paid very handsomely for playing a game.

 

The best benefit the union could ask for in return would be a no-trade clause. Or the upper-tier FAs could demand that in their contracts (like Forsberg has) and that would eliminate the worry of having to uproot his family before his contract is up.

 

I also don't see why, to use your example of the Sabres and Drury, the Sabres shouldn't get something of value for giving up something of value (the right to have Drury playing for them for the remainder of the season). Even if they are (in your example) planning on trying to re-sign him on July 2.

 

And technically, like Shrader said, the team that gave him up doesn't have 1st crack at him. The team that traded for him does. Once he's been traded, he can't negotiate with the team he left.

I probably should have worded that differently. The issue I have is the handshake deals - the "Mats, we're going to trade you but we are going to bring you back as soon as FA starts" type deals. In that case, Toronto still has first crack at him, no matter if he is playing for Edmonton or Calgary or whomever.

 

shrader, I think there is a difference - other teams might not have made enough effort to land Chara, might not have made a credible offer, whatever. At least they had a chance to sign him. If a player has one of these handshake deals, he's pretty much "spoken for" and that is where I have an issue. In that case, it doesn't matter who wants Sundin - he wants Toronto and Toronto has already decided to bring him back, so no one else has an actual shot at him.

 

Again, what is the harm in making a team who traded away a potential UFA having to wait a short period, maybe one week, before re-signing him?

[Taro T]

Not overall salaries, but how much Sundin gets will help set the market for both similar players and guys slotted as "lesser" talents, and will be used as a point of reference for arbitration. So the union would benefit not in total amount of $$ of leaguewide revenues, but in how that $$ gets distributed.

 

I think you're exaggerating my example. I am not saying they need to be forced to negotiate with everyone, nor should they have to contact all the teams and see if they are interested. I just want to see the original team, who trades his rights away, have to wait a little before they can sign him back. Plus, the whole kids in the same schools or what line you're playing on aspects - while I sympathize with those concerns, I couldn't care less. That's one of the things you have to deal with in being paid very handsomely for playing a game.

 

The best benefit the union could ask for in return would be a no-trade clause. Or the upper-tier FAs could demand that in their contracts (like Forsberg has) and that would eliminate the worry of having to uproot his family before his contract is up.

I probably should have worded that differently. The issue I have is the handshake deals - the "Mats, we're going to trade you but we are going to bring you back as soon as FA starts" type deals. In that case, Toronto still has first crack at him, no matter if he is playing for Edmonton or Calgary or whomever.

 

shrader, I think there is a difference - other teams might not have made enough effort to land Chara, might not have made a credible offer, whatever. At least they had a chance to sign him. If a player has one of these handshake deals, he's pretty much "spoken for" and that is where I have an issue. In that case, it doesn't matter who wants Sundin - he wants Toronto and Toronto has already decided to bring him back, so no one else has an actual shot at him.

 

Again, what is the harm in making a team who traded away a potential UFA having to wait a short period, maybe one week, before re-signing him?

The union already has that as your example points out.

 

I honestly don't see how the system you propose would be implemented in a way that effects any change in player or team behavior. If a player, such as Dead Weight, is determined to sign with a particular team, in this case St. Louis; I don't see how a "waiting period" of any modest length would change the player or team's behaviors. If the player isn't dead set on returning to that team, and another team is interested in him, that team could give him a call at 12:01 and offer him a great package. Dougie didn't sign on the 1st day of free agency, someone could have made him that "offer he couldn't refuse".

 

I understand your frustration with the system, although that is not an aspect of the system that I take the same issue with. But I don't see a realistic way to bring your idea into free agency. You ask what harm would come from your proposal, I'm looking at it from the other side and trying to see what benefit would come from it.

 

And I disagree with your belief that even in a system where the total player salary pool is a fixed $ amount (and it is fixed even though no one knows before the season ends what that total pool contained) it benefits the union to have the top tier player's salaries as a greater portion of that pool. The majority of players are better off under the current system when the studs aren't taking $'s out of their pockets. If 20% contracts for a few players cause the players on-paper share of revenues to exceed their 54% (at current revenue levels) agreed upon take; then everybody has his pay reduced to the point where the players do get 54%.

 

As a specific example, I don't see where any Sabre (with the possible exception of Drury) benefits by Briere being paid $5MM this year.

 

I also disagree that skyrocketing arbitration awards are a benefit to the union as a whole. A large part of the reason the Sabres had to let JP go, was the very high arbitration award that Briere got due to the contracts Havlat and a few others signed this off season. JP did get to become an UFA, but he did so so late in the game that he signed a contract for less than he would have under normal free agency. It seems to me that the arbitration system as currently designed and implemented will result in players NOT getting paid what they are worth, as several players will get awards that are skewed higher than what the correct market value should be (as we have seen this past off-season) or teams will walk away from awards after most teams have already reached their budgeted for salaries and those players will end up with less than their proper market value. Players not getting paid their relative worth is not good for the union.

[Bmwolf21]

And I disagree with your belief that even in a system where the total player salary pool is a fixed $ amount (and it is fixed even though no one knows before the season ends what that total pool contained) it benefits the union to have the top tier player's salaries as a greater portion of that pool. The majority of players are better off under the current system when the studs aren't taking $'s out of their pockets. If 20% contracts for a few players cause the players on-paper share of revenues to exceed their 54% (at current revenue levels) agreed upon take; then everybody has his pay reduced to the point where the players do get 54%.

 

As a specific example, I don't see where any Sabre (with the possible exception of Drury) benefits by Briere being paid $5MM this year.

Like I said, there is little benefit to the players overall, but as you point out with the Drury/Briere example, it affects individual groups of players.

 

Players not getting paid their relative worth (a completely subjective issue, BTW) is not an issue with free agency, it's an issue that stems from the salary cap (and to a lesser extent, economics in general.) Because there are limited $$ that each team can spend, there will always be players who don't get what they are worth. Likewise when you have teams that don't spend to the cap - they might have the cap space to sign Player X to a $4M contract, but don't want to go over their own self-imposed cap, so Player X is forced to consider smaller contracts from other teams.

 

As I said, I just think these handshake deals are something that can end up being unfair to the team and threaten the integrity of the FA process, and I am wondering how long it will be before someone makes some noise about tampering, when one of the handshake deals bites a team on the butt. Maybe I am reading too much into it, but that's just MHO.

[FogBat]

That's why I like Spector's trade rumors - taken straight from the media, with his comments (usually a dose of reality) added in. Eklund seems to just throw stuff out there, like the posters on TSW...

I'd like to know where this Eklund guy came from. He's a regular on XM's Home Ice. He constantly postulates about what's going on in the trade rumor mill, and he incessantly brags about all the swank and chich restaurants that he and his family eat at in the Philadelphia area.

 

Hey, Eklund: "Where's the $$ Coming From" to pay your salary???

 

I just find it hard to believe that he's making a decent living doing what he's doing while he constantly misses the mark about who's getting moved around in the NHL. That's why I don't even listen to him when he comes on the air anymore.

[Bmwolf21]

TRADE ALERT:

The Los Angeles Kings have traded centre Sean Avery and prospect John Seymour to the New York Rangers for right winger Jason Ward along with prospects Marc-Andre Cliche and Jan Marek.

 

Avery, 26, has established a reputation as a contentious player with controversial statements and a league penalty minute crown part of his package.

 

The 5-foot-11, 185-pound pivot has toned down his act this season and is on pace for his most productive season. Through 55 games, Avery has 10 goals, 28 points, 116 penalty minutes and is minus-10.

 

LINK

 

So I guess we'll be seeing Avery after all...man, that seems like a lot to give up for him.

[shrader]

As I said, I just think these handshake deals are something that can end up being unfair to the team and threaten the integrity of the FA process, and I am wondering how long it will be before someone makes some noise about tampering, when one of the handshake deals bites a team on the butt. Maybe I am reading too much into it, but that's just MHO.

 

I think you are reading into it too much. Generally, when there's a guy who really want to play in a certain city, everyone knows about it. The player and the team don't reach an agreement before he's traded away, but they know that both sides will be waiting to talk the second free agency starts. The term "handshake deal" seems like a misrepresentation of the situation to me.

 

I understand why you don't like it and have no problem with that. The problem is that any possible solution is too unrealistic for the NHL to make happen.

[Bmwolf21]

I think you are reading into it too much. Generally, when there's a guy who really want to play in a certain city, everyone knows about it. The player and the team don't reach an agreement before he's traded away, but they know that both sides will be waiting to talk the second free agency starts. The term "handshake deal" seems like a misrepresentation of the situation to me.

 

I understand why you don't like it and have no problem with that. The problem is that any possible solution is too unrealistic for the NHL to make happen.

You're probably right, there probably isn't an actual deal in place or anything like that. I just think it will happen, as we've seen owners in other sports who think they can beat the system and sign players to deals outside the CBA (think Joe Smith in the NBA.)

 

And I am probably reading into it too much, but I needed something to take my mind off the "bitching about Ryan Miller" threads...