Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Great Season Boys


Recommended Posts

Keep Fast, Puljujarvi, and Stepan or Pauly, but not both. Staal if he's going for a year to year deal and cheap enough. 

The rest of the FA can walk as far as I'm concerned. Go after a physical forward who will be able to be tough on the boards and will sell out to clear space. Get our top 4 D locked down long term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Anybodyhome said:

Both of these guys will call their own shots and nobody will begrudge either of them. Staal is only 34, but he looks like a player considering retirement.

Ya think? He was the 4th overall pick in 2016 and has 7 years in the league playing like a 6th round pick.

Stastny is like Fast and Staal- he gets to make his own call. I think he may retire. Stepan will be replaced. Can't pay him any less and, believe it or not, he was making $7M+ just a few years ago.

Ghost will be back next year barring a stupid amount of money he asks for. Coghlan and DeHaan are replaceable. LaJoie has shown me little to be excited about. Rather underwhelming.

Fortunately, the 3 blue lines are signed, so adding depth isn't difficult.

Agree on everything but Fasty. We are going to have to overpay fast and we should begin bracing for it now. 

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, lightsout said:

Keep Fast, Puljujarvi, and Stepan or Pauly, but not both. Staal if he's going for a year to year deal and cheap enough. 

The rest of the FA can walk as far as I'm concerned. Go after a physical forward who will be able to be tough on the boards and will sell out to clear space. Get our top 4 D locked down long term.

Puljujari?? WTF? Why?

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Puljujari?? WTF? Why?

I want to see him once he gets a full camp under his belt, it’s obvious he struggled understanding our system when being thrown into it, he had a really good year in Edmonton before this season so there is potential for him to be a solid 4th.

Unfortunately he’s RFA and I don’t think we should go out of our way to sign him but if nobody else does and we can bring him back on a bridge minimum deal I don’t think that’s a problem. 
 

 

 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Harbingers said:

I want to see him once he gets a full camp under his belt, it’s obvious he struggled understanding our system when being thrown into it, he had a really good year in Edmonton before this season so there is potential for him to be a solid 4th.

Unfortunately he’s RFA and I don’t think we should go out of our way to sign him but if nobody else does and we can bring him back on a bridge minimum deal I don’t think that’s a problem. 
 

 

 

Dude, he is terrible. Literally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Dude, he is terrible. Literally.

In 90% of todays hockey clubs yes he’s terrible. But I think given a fair shake he might be able to come out of a camp as a team player. He obviously to this point can’t grasp how we play, which is a hell of a lot different than how Edmonton plays. I think a camp in which he can reset his brain would elevate his game. He’s shown glimpses of it in Edmonton. He’s also shown he has the work ethic. Getting him on a minimum bridge contract in a new year and build on relationships with our players he might start producing and if he doesn’t he’s on a minimum bridge anyways. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Harbingers said:

In 90% of todays hockey clubs yes he’s terrible. But I think given a fair shake he might be able to come out of a camp as a team player. He obviously to this point can’t grasp how we play, which is a hell of a lot different than how Edmonton plays. I think a camp in which he can reset his brain would elevate his game. He’s shown glimpses of it in Edmonton. He’s also shown he has the work ethic. Getting him on a minimum bridge contract in a new year and build on relationships with our players he might start producing and if he doesn’t he’s on a minimum bridge anyways. 

I mean, I am ready to move on from him. That was just a failed trade based on a flawed premise of him having chemistry with Aho due to prior experience.

I suspect we will move on from him.

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

I mean, I am ready to move on from him. That was just a failed trade based on a flawed premise of him having chemistry with Aho due to prior experience.

I suspect we will move on from him.

I’m just playing devils advocate. I could seem some potential from him but I think end the end we won’t. 
 

That said we do need to find Aho a feed man though. 

Edited by Harbingers
  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Svechnikov had surgery mid-march, it was estimated 6-9 months to heal. Taking the 9 month period,  Svech could be back early January, maybe sooner. Never know about these things though.

Not sure about the prospects of Pacioreti returning.

Edited by DavidEng
  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Harbingers said:

Agree on everything but Fasty. We are going to have to overpay fast and we should begin bracing for it now. 

Yeah I am kind of concerned about Fast.  He has really been great for us and I think he would be hard to replace.  I hope he likes Carolina enough to maybe take just a smidge less than the best offer he will get.

 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...