|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Sept 13, 2006 8:00:00 GMT -5
The Flyer's GM produced an offer sheet to Canucks RFA Ryan Kessler, offering twice what Nonnis was trying to negotiate. If anyone was to do this, you know it had to come from Bobby Clark. www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=177269&hubname= |
|
|
|
Post by sergejean on Sept 13, 2006 13:22:10 GMT -5
It's to be noted that Clark made sure to sign Simon Gagne before crossing this unwritten rule...
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 13, 2006 18:54:18 GMT -5
And in true Clarke fashion: Clarke goes on offensive defending offer
TSN.ca Staff
9/13/2006 5:59:44 PM[/b] For all the NHL general managers, or anyone else for that matter, who are enraged over the Philadelphia Flyers' offer sheet to Vancouver's Ryan Kesler, Flyer GM Bob Clarke has a message: "I don't give a (expletive deleted) if nobody likes me, I could care less," Clarke told TSN. "But they shouldn't be getting mad at me, I didn't put the (offer sheet) rule in the collective bargaining agreement. If they're mad, they should call Gary Bettman and complain to him. Get mad at Gary Bettman. He's in charge of the rules, not me. I didn't realize there were some rules we're not allowed to use." Clarke said he knew when he extended the one-year, $1.9 million offer sheet to the 22-year-old Kesler, a 10-goal scorer last season who was on the verge of re-signing for half that much with the Canucks, that he would incur the wrath of his brethren. Too bad, Clarke said. "I'm trying to make my team better," Clarke said. "There's a rule that says we can put out offer sheets. So I did it. You know, it's funny, they made new rules so we're operating in a system where we all get to spend the same amount of money. Philadelphia and Detroit can't spend any more than Nashville or Anaheim. Those are the rules. We all live by them. No one can accuse Philadelphia or Detroit of spending more money than everyone else now. But when I go and use a rule that is there, everybody is all over me about it." And Clarke was just getting warmed up. "To me, our thinking is completely backward," Clarke said. "I lost Kim Johnsson to (unrestricted) free agency because the Minnesota Wild gave him $4.8 million. Well, the Flyers had to give (revenue sharing) money to Minnesota and other teams and I don't like that but it's the rules. And then Minnesota takes that money and signs my player and there are no rules to say I can keep him if I match. I wish I had all the options with Kim Johnsson that Vancouver has with Kesler. They can match and keep him or they can let him go. It's up to them." As for those who suggest Clarke should not have tendered the offer sheet because Vancouver will match and the market value for 22-year-old, 10-goal scorers will be inflated, Clark took umbrage with that. "Sure, in the old system, teams always matched offer sheets but this is a new system with a salary cap and you have to make hard decisions that affect your team not just for this year but the years to come, too," Clarke said. "I don't know that Vancouver will match. Maybe we get the player. That's the idea. It's a few days to training camp, the player wasn't signed and we have a need for that type of player in our organization. Why wouldn't I try it? Everyone says it's causing salaries to go up. That's crap. We've all got salary caps and if it is true it drives up salaries, well, doesn't Boston signing (Zdeno) Chara to a $7 million deal or Chicago signing (Martin) Havlat to a $6 million deal drive up salaries, too? Give me a break. "A lot of guys in this league like the rules when it suits them and they don't like them when it doesn't. Too bad for them. I'm just playing by the rules that are there. To be honest, I'm surprised more teams aren't doing it.”[/i] The linkCheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 13, 2006 19:24:29 GMT -5
Way to go Clarke. Apparently Minnesota are one of the teams that had to pay under the revenue sharing plan, and were not recipients.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2006 21:00:53 GMT -5
He's right, Clarke is. Why he would want to offer $2 million to a 10-goal scorer is beyond me, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Sept 13, 2006 21:47:20 GMT -5
He's right, Clarke is. Why he would want to offer $2 million to a 10-goal scorer is beyond me, though. Let's see. Kesler is big, rugged and shoots right handed. He scored 22 points at even strength or short-handed and very likely accumulated those points with unskilled wingers. His opportunties on the PP were probably limited. He is four years younger than Mike Ribeiro and will likely hone is offensive skills over time. Ribeiro is a creative center who played more than his fair share of minutes with guys like Kovalev and Ryder. At even strength he picked up 26 points and for those efforts he makes $1.9 million. Oh yeah, he did pick up a bunch of points on the PP but who is to say Kesler wouldn't as well. For now we can only compare what they achieved in similar circumstances. And Kesler achieved this while playing 2.5 minutes per game less(or15% less) than Ribeiro. Hey, if Vancouver would trade me Kesler for Ribeiro even up, I would grab the opportunity before they had a chance to change their minds. Clarke obviously sees potential in Kessler and was willing to pay a little more than necessary to entice him to come over. He would have been paying for what he expects the player to develop into. It was an astute move by Clarke and I think we will see more of these moves in the future. And that is going to make it more difficult for marginal players to sign big contract because GM's will want to keep some of their powder dry for exactly this type of situation. |
|
|
|
Post by Forum Ghost on Sept 14, 2006 0:16:28 GMT -5
As I mentioned in another thread, I think that this move by Clarke is the reason why teams are going to want to keep extra space under the cap.
If one of your players gets an offer sheet then you're going to have to spend an extra few bucks in order to retain that player.
As a GM, it makes sense to leave yourself some breathing room so that you can deal with these emergencies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Sept 14, 2006 7:16:12 GMT -5
As I mentioned in another thread, I think that this move by Clarke is the reason why teams are going to want to keep extra space under the cap. If one of your players gets an offer sheet then you're going to have to spend an extra few bucks in order to retain that player. As a GM, it makes sense to leave yourself some breathing room so that you can deal with these emergencies. It will also entice GM's *cough* Gainey *cough* to start negotiating and signing players quicker (for what they are worth hopefully) so other teams dont get a chance to sign them to a ludicrous offer sheet. |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Sept 14, 2006 8:12:21 GMT -5
He's right, Clarke is. Why he would want to offer $2 million to a 10-goal scorer is beyond me, though. Let's see. Kesler is big, rugged and shoots right handed. He scored 22 points at even strength or short-handed and very likely accumulated those points with unskilled wingers. His opportunties on the PP were probably limited. He is four years younger than Mike Ribeiro and will likely hone is offensive skills over time. Ribeiro is a creative center who played more than his fair share of minutes with guys like Kovalev and Ryder. At even strength he picked up 26 points and for those efforts he makes $1.9 million. Oh yeah, he did pick up a bunch of points on the PP but who is to say Kesler wouldn't as well. For now we can only compare what they achieved in similar circumstances. And Kesler achieved this while playing 2.5 minutes per game less(or15% less) than Ribeiro. Hey, if Vancouver would trade me Kesler for Ribeiro even up, I would grab the opportunity before they had a chance to change their minds. Clarke obviously sees potential in Kessler and was willing to pay a little more than necessary to entice him to come over. He would have been paying for what he expects the player to develop into. It was an astute move by Clarke and I think we will see more of these moves in the future. And that is going to make it more difficult for marginal players to sign big contract because GM's will want to keep some of their powder dry for exactly this type of situation. Vancouver isn't exactly deep up the middle. Last year would have been the chance for Kessler to step up. Morrison spent a good chunk of time in the doghouse on the 4th line. RK could have, but didn't seize the opportunity. Ribeiro, for all his faults, has produced to a certain level. Certainly one that you can fathom a salary pushing $2 million. Kessler hasn't even come close. Word is that Nonis was close to a deal with Kessler that would have saw him earn half of what he did now. Furthermore, it's reported that Clarke tried to trade for him earlier in the Summer. Nonis wasn't interested. Whether Clarke had eyes on Anson Carter, and hoped to make it impossible for Vancouver to sign him or not, it's clear Clarke did this to thumb his nose at Vancouver. Those reports that Nonis declined trade offers from Clarke also say that Nonis claimed he match and offersheet if Clarke made one. Clarke waited till the last minute, and suckered punched Nonis when he wasn't lookin. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Sept 14, 2006 8:56:29 GMT -5
It will also entice GM's *cough* Gainey *cough* to start negotiating and signing players quicker (for what they are worth hopefully) so other teams dont get a chance to sign them to a ludicrous offer sheet. So there is an upside to an idiot move. Tallon/Dudley and Clarke: way to go, guys . . . a year without hockey so that "salaries can be kept in check" so that you can throw them out of whack a year later.  |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Sept 14, 2006 11:40:57 GMT -5
If you skate with your head down, there are some who will ease up on you and there are some that will seize that moment to give you the most wicked check they can. Clarke has always been in the second category.
Pierre Larouche always tells this story about Bobby Clarke: In his rookie season, Larouche eventually played a game against the Flyers (who at the time were pretty intimidating) he went to the faceoff circle and there he was, facing Bobby Clarke. Clarke looked at him with a grin and said something along the lines of : "...You touch that puck and I'll rip your head off...", guess what says Pierre, "...I didn't touch it...".
Clarke will use every trick in the book to his advantage and so will many GMs.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Sept 14, 2006 11:59:29 GMT -5
If I’m not mistaken, isn’t this the second time Clarke has made an RFA an offer? Didn’t he sign Chris Gratton, back when he was in Tampa? If I recall, Jacques Demers and the Lightning matched the offer, and then promptly traded Gratton to Philly, for Renberg, and a bunch of others…
At any rate, I think what has upset most GMs is the meaness of Clarke’s move. He says he’s trying to do whatever it takes to make his team better, but is he really? Everybody knew the Canucks were going to match that offer, so in essence all Clarke is doing is driving up their payroll. The chances of him actually getting Kesler were slim to none, as they are for most RFAs, so you really aren’t accomplishing anything, other than forcing the other guy to fork over more money. Vancouver had the cap room, they don’t need it to sign anybody else, they don’t even play in the same conference as Philly. So it’s not like Clarke can fall back upon some Machiavellian excuse, like he was thinking ahead and eating up Vancouver’s cap space so they wouldn’t be able to make any moves during the season, which would cause Philly to finish ahead of them. If he was going after a New Jersey player, you could make the argument that he was making a tactical strike, but a Canuck? Smacks more of spite, than good hockey management, if you ask me.
It would be like somebody making an offer to Komisarek. You know the Habs are going to match it, so why do it, other than to drive up their payroll?
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 14, 2006 12:12:43 GMT -5
As I mentioned in another thread, I think that this move by Clarke is the reason why teams are going to want to keep extra space under the cap. If one of your players gets an offer sheet then you're going to have to spend an extra few bucks in order to retain that player. As a GM, it makes sense to leave yourself some breathing room so that you can deal with these emergencies. It will also entice GM's *cough* Gainey *cough* to start negotiating and signing players quicker (for what they are worth hopefully) so other teams dont get a chance to sign them to a ludicrous offer sheet. Nonis was taking his time because he could afford to. Kesler can't file for arbitration, or hold out past December 1st. At this stage of his career he's supposed to get a lowball contract. Not because the Canucks are trying to snub him or rip him off - but because they hold all the chips and are leveraging them. Just like Kesler will do later in his career when he has options. It's just business. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Sept 15, 2006 20:53:27 GMT -5
There's a relatively easy solution to this. Other teams should simply make offer sheets to certain Philly players...youngish RFA's. So Carter, Richards and Umberger are the next targets. If all that's at stake is a 2nd rounder and the other guy is a former 1st rounder with potential, like Kesler, it would force Clarke to match, get into big cap problems and then Snyder would fire him for the fool that he is. Nonis is right when he says he doesn't understand it. The Canucks would not risk losing an up and coming Linden type forward so the matching part was a given. All Clarke did was cost the Canucks Cap space. Nonis said he'd been told Clarke would kick his grandmother down the stairs if it would help him win and as much as agreed with that assessment, in addition to saying Clarke did nothing wrong, but it made no sense whatsoever. The league needs to look at that salary range offer sheet compensation and bump it up somewhat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Forum Ghost on Sept 15, 2006 23:31:18 GMT -5
I didn't think the "offer sheet" option was a good idea in the last CBA and I still don't think it's a good idea.
I'm surprised that they included it in the current CBA.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Sept 16, 2006 10:19:10 GMT -5
There's a relatively easy solution to this. Other teams should simply make offer sheets to certain Philly players...youngish RFA's. So Carter, Richards and Umberger are the next targets. If all that's at stake is a 2nd rounder and the other guy is a former 1st rounder with potential, like Kesler, it would force Clarke to match, get into big cap problems and then Snyder would fire him for the fool that he is. Nonis is right when he says he doesn't understand it. The Canucks would not risk losing an up and coming Linden type forward so the matching part was a given. All Clarke did was cost the Canucks Cap space. Nonis said he'd been told Clarke would kick his grandmother down the stairs if it would help him win and as much as agreed with that assessment, in addition to saying Clarke did nothing wrong, but it made no sense whatsoever. The league needs to look at that salary range offer sheet compensation and bump it up somewhat. I am not sure bumping it up is the solution. If the compensation is bumped up no team will make offers and it might be viewed as a "de facto" collusion clause. I feel the way to go is to have a time limit on RFA's. Right now if RFA's are not signed by Dec.1 than they can't play in that season. That is fine. But I also feel that there should be a clause that states a team has until Oct.1 to sign RFA's, and if they don't, then the compensation goes down if another team signs him in the last two months. This would hopefully get GM's to negotiate with RFA's in a more timely fashion and in good faith. Right now a team holds all the cards with RFA's, especially if that RFA does not file for arbitration. I agree that a team needs certain gaurantees that they will have a player in his prime years (and be compensated if they lose him) but I don't agree with a team basically holding a player at ransom .... fans pay to see players play, not to be sitting out a full season because of stubborness on one or two party's part. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Sept 16, 2006 10:36:54 GMT -5
But Skilly, the players gained in having the UFA age lowered. Whatever 'poor' compensation (and I'm not sure $900,000 is chicken feed) they get as a 2nd year pro they can make much more at 26 and 27, when they still have 4 or 5 good years ahead of them. I don't think the players are suffering. What Clarke did was just punitive for no reason. That's why I think giving him back his own medicine is the best consequence for him. It might bump salaries for a year, but if that option is depopularized, I suspect Kesler's next contract is going to drop down to 1.2 mil from 1.9 and sanity will return. Or whatever percentage of the total cap is, if the cap keeps going up. That's what players should be aiming for....make the product entertaining and help increase revenues. I don't mean to make it sound like the players are at fault. Kesler didn't drug Clarke, Clarke is just a natural jerk. Too bad Larouche didn't spear him in the groin on that face-off (oops, missed the puck).
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Sept 16, 2006 14:27:20 GMT -5
Clarke is like your ex-wife's new husband. You don't want to keep her and pay for her, but you don't want anybody else to have her. I say let him keep the overpriced Kessler and pay for her. Didn't want her anyways. She won't look as good in a couple of years as she did when she was a rookie.
Kessler and Clarke, a match made in heaven. Kessler makes Ribeiro's production look great.
|
|
