dlbalr Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 If we add another quality forward, then Darche *probably* becomes the odd man out. Although at least he seizes his opportunities and brings it every night. Unlike some I could mention (cough...POULIOT). Personally I'd rather take our chances with our current forward rotation and sign both Wiz and Markov, but even that may be peeing in the wind. I look at Vancouver's cap management - both lucky and good - and sigh with envy. How lucky was it when they needed multiple players on LTIR to get through the year while using no name callups shuttling them back and forth? (Though I like the last bit, I've been saying for years the Habs need to start doing that.) Yes, it's nice now to have a cap upwards of $70 million but if part of the plan is to have guys get hurt, you're literally asking for trouble. Barring Salo's beyond freak injury, they would have had no choice but to move a core piece or two to get under. I can't qualify that as good cap management. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 How lucky was it when they needed multiple players on LTIR to get through the year while using no name callups shuttling them back and forth? (Though I like the last bit, I've been saying for years the Habs need to start doing that.) Yes, it's nice now to have a cap upwards of $70 million but if part of the plan is to have guys get hurt, you're literally asking for trouble. Barring Salo's beyond freak injury, they would have had no choice but to move a core piece or two to get under. I can't qualify that as good cap management. No, but what IS good cap management is signing the Luongo AND the Sedins at well under market value in terms of cap hit. Three gigantic pieces of the core, locked up at relatively cut rates - that's awesome. The hell of it is, this team will be elite for years to come in part because of those deals. Also because they locked up Kesler slightly before he hit his full stride (more luck than skill there, arguably; but the bottom line is that Luongo, the Sedins and Kesler are all under contract long-term at disproportionately low cap hits - basically the opposite of Montreal's situation). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 No, but what IS good cap management is signing the Luongo AND the Sedins at well under market value in terms of cap hit. Three gigantic pieces of the core, locked up at relatively cut rates - that's awesome. The hell of it is, this team will be elite for years to come in part because of those deals. Also because they locked up Kesler slightly before he hit his full stride (more luck than skill there, arguably; but the bottom line is that Luongo, the Sedins and Kesler are all under contract long-term at disproportionately low cap hits - basically the opposite of Montreal's situation). Yep, those were good...though the Sedins clearly took a hometown discount; both the Leafs and Habs were going to have much bigger offers on the table. I'm not sure how much of that is good GM'ing and just having the right guys willing to stay there, it's obviously some of each though. Luongo's deal isn't far from being a bad thing, what with Schneider waiting in the wings. There are a lot of Vancouver fans who don't like that contract. I like Kesler's deal though, I agree there. For those hoping Subban could get that long-term, cap friendly deal, he's eligible to sign an extension on July 1st. I think they will consider going that route, especially if they think the CBA will outlaw it in a year from now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habs rule Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Yep, those were good...though the Sedins clearly took a hometown discount; both the Leafs and Habs were going to have much bigger offers on the table. I'm not sure how much of that is good GM'ing and just having the right guys willing to stay there, it's obviously some of each though. Luongo's deal isn't far from being a bad thing, what with Schneider waiting in the wings. There are a lot of Vancouver fans who don't like that contract. I like Kesler's deal though, I agree there. For those hoping Subban could get that long-term, cap friendly deal, he's eligible to sign an extension on July 1st. I think they will consider going that route, especially if they think the CBA will outlaw it in a year from now. I agree with Brian Luongo's deal is no sweetheart deal imho, but the Sedins was a good signing, however they only want to play with each other on the same team so to get full market value for them is difficult given cap constraints. And I do recall at the beginning of the year we all thought someone was going to have to be moved to get under the cap. They got "lucky" with the ltir if you can call it lucky to have a core individual hurt. we certainly wouldn't call it lucky to have Markov hurt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 I agree with Brian Luongo's deal is no sweetheart deal imho, but the Sedins was a good signing, however they only want to play with each other on the same team so to get full market value for them is difficult given cap constraints. And I do recall at the beginning of the year we all thought someone was going to have to be moved to get under the cap. They got "lucky" with the ltir if you can call it lucky to have a core individual hurt. we certainly wouldn't call it lucky to have Markov hurt. The Luongo deal is not likely to turn out as badly as some people think. First of all, elite players these days generally play at a high level until well into their mid 30s. Second, even if he slips a bit, there will always be some stupid-assed team desperate for goaltending and willing to take on a Cup and Gold Medal winner provided he hasn't completely lost the plot. Third, nothing in Luongo's profile suggests that he would accept a substantially diminished role - he would quite likely retire rather than cling on as a useless has-been. At most, the contract would be a problem for a year or two as Luongo grapples with his diminished capacities. Meanwhile, you've enjoyed years of paying below cap value for a high-end netminder. As for Schneider, it is typical of Canucks fans - all fans, really - to assume that you can deal away a proven star goalie in favour of a raw rookie and get comparable results. I remember 1993, when a significant portion of the fanbase wanted to trade Roy, and this with Red Light Racicot as our fall back position. Gillis locked up his cornerstone player at a modest cap hit by taking advantage of that loophole in the CBA regarding term length before Bettman et al. closed it up. That's good GMing, pure and simple. The Leafs or the Habs would have opened the vault to sign the Sedins. Don't kid yourself, that was a coup by Vancouver. (Incidentally, Vancouver fans have been agitating for years to unload the 'Sedin Sisters' too Jesus wept). The Canucks deserve credit for creating an environment in which players are willing to take a hometown discount. Contrast that with Markov; he wanted to stay in Montreal, yes, but the Habs still had to pay fair market value to sign him (and will probably have to do so again). The Canucks aren't perfect, but their cap management has been light years ahead of ours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wamsley01 Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 The Luongo deal is not likely to turn out as badly as some people think. First of all, elite players these days generally play at a high level until well into their mid 30s. Second, even if he slips a bit, there will always be some stupid-assed team desperate for goaltending and willing to take on a Cup and Gold Medal winner provided he hasn't completely lost the plot. Third, nothing in Luongo's profile suggests that he would accept a substantially diminished role - he would quite likely retire rather than cling on as a useless has-been. At most, the contract would be a problem for a year or two as Luongo grapples with his diminished capacities. Meanwhile, you've enjoyed years of paying below cap value for a high-end netminder. As for Schneider, it is typical of Canucks fans - all fans, really - to assume that you can deal away a proven star goalie in favour of a raw rookie and get comparable results. I remember 1993, when a significant portion of the fanbase wanted to trade Roy, and this with Red Light Racicot as our fall back position. Gillis locked up his cornerstone player at a modest cap hit by taking advantage of that loophole in the CBA regarding term length before Bettman et al. closed it up. That's good GMing, pure and simple. The Leafs or the Habs would have opened the vault to sign the Sedins. Don't kid yourself, that was a coup by Vancouver. (Incidentally, Vancouver fans have been agitating for years to unload the 'Sedin Sisters' too Jesus wept). The Canucks deserve credit for creating an environment in which players are willing to take a hometown discount. Contrast that with Markov; he wanted to stay in Montreal, yes, but the Habs still had to pay fair market value to sign him (and will probably have to do so again). The Canucks aren't perfect, but their cap management has been light years ahead of ours. I don't think I agree in regards to Luongo, your parallel is correct in relation to fans being stupid and wanting Racicot over Roy, but where I think it doesn't work here is the chasm between Racicot and Roy and Schneider and Luongo differs immensely. Nobody bothers to study the goaltending position. The media does not understand the position at all and I wonder if GMs do with some of the things they do. If anybody wants to truly understand the position all they need to do is go on youtube or take a look at a new set of pads in the sports store and contrast them to what Roy wore. The style that is being taught is essentially robot goalie, the difference between Price and the worst goaltender in the league is nowhere near the talent technique difference between Patrick Roy and Alan Bester and that was a 21 team league. Where the future elite will distance themselves is athleticism and intelligence. Over the next decade you will see cookie cutter goalies learning all the same techniques and nobody will know the difference because the standard for what differentiates goalies for general fan is SV%. So a guy like Leighton plugged into a Devils type team can easily be misinterpreted as "elite" because of the fans lack of understanding the position and the lazy fallback on the stats page. Luongo is not among the new school. He is among the Roy generation. Large butterfly goaltender with average footwork and great reflexes. I don't think it is out of the question that Schneider could be better than him today let alone two years from now. Schneider is a member of the next wave. The Price style movements that work on fluid footwork, effortless sliding ability and hybrid style setups. Miller, HIller, Ward, Rask are all among this wave and are changing the game. Drop Jimmy Howard into 2002 with his equipment today and technique and he would be the best goaltender in the league. That is evolution, the same evolution that saw Eric Lindros as a monster and wrecking machine and now sees Ovechkin almost the same size and nowhere near the same reputation as a beast of a man 15 years later. This is not Price/Halak part two. Trading Schneider could be a massive mistake because of his age, experience and technical efficiency. In Montreal both goaltenders were young and the Canadiens rolled the dice on the bigger, younger more technically efficient keeper. In Vancouver they might deal the future and be stuck with an underperforming aging asset with a monster contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
habs rule Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 I don't think I agree in regards to Luongo, your parallel is correct in relation to fans being stupid and wanting Racicot over Roy, but where I think it doesn't work here is the chasm between Racicot and Roy and Schneider and Luongo differs immensely. Nobody bothers to study the goaltending position. The media does not understand the position at all and I wonder if GMs do with some of the things they do. If anybody wants to truly understand the position all they need to do is go on youtube or take a look at a new set of pads in the sports store and contrast them to what Roy wore. The style that is being taught is essentially robot goalie, the difference between Price and the worst goaltender in the league is nowhere near the talent technique difference between Patrick Roy and Alan Bester and that was a 21 team league. Where the future elite will distance themselves is athleticism and intelligence. Over the next decade you will see cookie cutter goalies learning all the same techniques and nobody will know the difference because the standard for what differentiates goalies for general fan is SV%. So a guy like Leighton plugged into a Devils type team can easily be misinterpreted as "elite" because of the fans lack of understanding the position and the lazy fallback on the stats page. Luongo is not among the new school. He is among the Roy generation. Large butterfly goaltender with average footwork and great reflexes. I don't think it is out of the question that Schneider could be better than him today let alone two years from now. Schneider is a member of the next wave. The Price style movements that work on fluid footwork, effortless sliding ability and hybrid style setups. Miller, HIller, Ward, Rask are all among this wave and are changing the game. Drop Jimmy Howard into 2002 with his equipment today and technique and he would be the best goaltender in the league. That is evolution, the same evolution that saw Eric Lindros as a monster and wrecking machine and now sees Ovechkin almost the same size and nowhere near the same reputation as a beast of a man 15 years later. This is not Price/Halak part two. Trading Schneider could be a massive mistake because of his age, experience and technical efficiency. In Montreal both goaltenders were young and the Canadiens rolled the dice on the bigger, younger more technically efficient keeper. In Vancouver they might deal the future and be stuck with an underperforming aging asset with a monster contract. I agree. I wonder if the islanders would like to get out of the dipietro contract. he has certainly done well for them over the past few years. No I hate long term contracts, invariably they get you in trouble. I do not agree that signing guys to 12 or 15 years is good cap management. You are stuck with them when it all goes south. And your cap management is in the pooper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sakiqc Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Yep, those were good...though the Sedins clearly took a hometown discount; both the Leafs and Habs were going to have much bigger offers on the table. I'm not sure how much of that is good GM'ing and just having the right guys willing to stay there, it's obviously some of each though. Luongo's deal isn't far from being a bad thing, what with Schneider waiting in the wings. There are a lot of Vancouver fans who don't like that contract. I like Kesler's deal though, I agree there. For those hoping Subban could get that long-term, cap friendly deal, he's eligible to sign an extension on July 1st. I think they will consider going that route, especially if they think the CBA will outlaw it in a year from now. What kind of long contract extension (years+salary)do you think Subban could get this Summer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 What kind of long contract extension (years+salary)do you think Subban could get this Summer? If they're convinced he's absolutely the real deal and a legit #1 d-man long term to the effect where they want to sign him this summer (a year before they need to), I think you'd be looking at anywhere from 5-15 years. As I said, I think they'll consider it but I'm a little skeptical that they'd go through with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 If they're convinced he's absolutely the real deal and a legit #1 d-man long term to the effect where they want to sign him this summer (a year before they need to), I think you'd be looking at anywhere from 5-15 years. As I said, I think they'll consider it but I'm a little skeptical that they'd go through with it. I wouldn't mind at all a 10 years contract for Subban and 5-7 years for Price. I'd do it in a heartbeat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saskhab Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 I'd do UP TO five years for Price. I still wouldn't go beyond that. I think ideally I'd re-up Price to a four year contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.