|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 26, 2024 17:16:08 GMT -5
Something tells me that Mailman and X are going to be a couple. Married sometimes toward the end of the season where a dumb decision by either is not going to upset the universe.
The idea of putting 470 pounds of angry beef on the ice is just too compelling. Think of the Weber/Chiarot pairing did for the health of opposing forwards, but far younger, bigger and meaner. Plus far, far more offense too.
Sometimes you create more of a whole then the individual parts. Two really big, young guys that feed from each other will be something that we haven't seen since when?
Was it an accident when X went down to the AHL that he was partnered with Mailman? And the already said they fed from each other desire.
IF I'm right, let me know how long you want to lock up our beast.
Maybe 5.5 is too high. Maybe. Maybe 4.5 is great too. But IF X is your 50 point LHD beast, you just never let him go. EVER.
|
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Jun 26, 2024 18:04:30 GMT -5
Slaf...7.5x8 Guhle...6.5x8 X...5.5x8 Move along.... Yes Yes No - Too much. 3.75 for 8 I like this, I said it before... X wants to retire his parents give him $30M USD guaranteed and he will take it, give him a 5M USD signing bonus at the start and he can retire them now. |
|
|
|
Post by folatre on Jun 26, 2024 18:49:04 GMT -5
If the belief is Slafkovsky is going to develop into a bona fide first line producer, then absolutely $7.5 for max term makes sense.
I am not saying Guhle is not a going to be an excellent two-way d-man. But I believe his offensive upside is a bit limited and point totals could be somewhat limited because I doubt he gets any power play time. Thus my feeling is $6.5 x 8 is too rich. Honestly I think the recent Vlasic contract in Chicago is a good starting template ($4.6 x 6). I would like to see Montreal get something done like six years for $30 million.
If the Habs see Xhekaj still improving rapidly (this happens with some raw talents on the blue line), then it makes sense to give the kid some long-term security in exchange for keeping the AAV in a reasonably modest range. I do not want to see a two-year bridge. I would be comfortable with something like $3.5 per for 6 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 27, 2024 13:42:16 GMT -5
Sharks trade 14 & 42 for 11. Thst ticks me off because I can see teams doing what I’d like Hughes to do. They’re all after Catton.
|
|
|
|
Post by folatre on Jun 27, 2024 17:25:26 GMT -5
The good old Sabres, emphasizing quantity over quality. Is Bergevin running the show there?
What I don't get is why Buffalo does not wait and see how the first round is transpiring. For the sake of argument, what if the kid Adams wants is Eiserman. Yeah sure, some rankings/mock drafts have Eiserman available at 14. But what if the Devils take him at 10.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tankdriver on Jun 27, 2024 17:49:46 GMT -5
Sharks trade 14 & 42 for 11. Thst ticks me off because I can see teams doing what I’d like Hughes to do. They’re all after Catton. It's the trade I want Hughes to do with his 26th. He'll I would sy, the 26th plus the worse of next year's firsts for 11. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jun 28, 2024 1:47:32 GMT -5
The good old Sabres, emphasizing quantity over quality. Is Bergevin running the show there? What I don't get is why Buffalo does not wait and see how the first round is transpiring. For the sake of argument, what if the kid Adams wants is Eiserman. Yeah sure, some rankings/mock drafts have Eiserman available at 14. But what if the Devils take him at 10. I figure it means the Sabres have gamed the draft and they have a handful of players of whom they expect at the very least 1 to still be around at 14. ie: you trade down when you find many similar prospects unappealing at the pick number we're at, you trade up in the hope of getting someone your scouts truly love. I figure Buffalo has a soft spot for the Norwegian kid or Eiserman, and the way they gamed it out, at least one should be there, otherwise someone ranked even higher would still be on the board. Why reach at 11 when you can likely get the same kid at 14 and get an added pick out of it ? |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Jun 29, 2024 12:41:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jun 29, 2024 12:58:28 GMT -5
I assume they'll try and hang onto Stamkos, then. Definitely a surprise move. |
|
|
|
Post by folatre on Jun 29, 2024 14:26:43 GMT -5
Sergachev is a stud and Utah has tens of millions in cap space. Tampa is clearing money and sort of trying to get a little younger. However, unless Connor Geekie turns out to be a good NHL player, the return for a top-pair d-man in his prime seems meh.
|
|
|
|
Post by IamCanadiens on Jun 29, 2024 22:47:30 GMT -5
Sergachev is a stud and Utah has tens of millions in cap space. Tampa is clearing money and sort of trying to get a little younger. However, unless Connor Geekie turns out to be a good NHL player, the return for a top-pair d-man in his prime seems meh. A stud that was close to getting taken out behind the barn and turned into glue last year. I'm just not convinced he can return to the same level after that awful injury and I can't help but wonder if this is smart asset management by Tampa and poor due diligence by Utah. I dunno. Maybe the injury wasn't as bad as it looked. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jun 30, 2024 1:25:39 GMT -5
I assume they'll try and hang onto Stamkos, then. Definitely a surprise move. I believe it's Guentzel they're really keen on and have a deal in place already. So, trading a puck moving 26 year old dman to create cap space for a scoring winger who turns 30 in October. Does that remind you of another trade for a guy called Drouin? That's tempting fate. I also heard on 32 thoughts, a trend involving older, previously productive veterans (eg Stamkos) where they are given a long term contract but at a low AAV, so that they get paid a lower amount, but for a long period of time. The total dollars end up the same, but the grizzle vet gets less now, for a much longer period than they should get. To me, that's cowardice on the part of the GM. They absolutely know they shouldn't be signing the guy at the amount he's asking for, but they structure the deal so that it helps them now, but after they're fired, the next guy coming in is saddled with these impediments to their plan in improving the team. I would love if all the no state tax teams did that so in the future, they have essentially the same 'real' CAP as everyone else. So, go for it, Florida, Tampa, Dallas, Vegas. Sign as many washed out vets as you can. Please. We'll equip all our players with Roadrunner's 'beep beep' horn as they race by you. |
|
|
|
Post by IamCanadiens on Jun 30, 2024 9:27:51 GMT -5
Sergachev is a stud and Utah has tens of millions in cap space. Tampa is clearing money and sort of trying to get a little younger. However, unless Connor Geekie turns out to be a good NHL player, the return for a top-pair d-man in his prime seems meh. A stud that was close to getting taken out behind the barn and turned into glue last year. I'm just not convinced he can return to the same level after that awful injury and I can't help but wonder if this is smart asset management by Tampa and poor due diligence by Utah. I dunno. Maybe the injury wasn't as bad as it looked. I didn't watch either of the playoff games after he returned to play. It's a very small sample size but did anyone see how he looked? |
|
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/archetype/6F6VF25GCFF2HFJCOITRJSGNPE.jpg)
