Who Thinks This Trade Is OK???

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from bogie6. Show bogie6's posts

    Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK???

    what are you trying to accomplish? PC has stated that he is not finished with his defense. One of the options, mentioned above, is Mark Streit with the Islanders. Reports of a week ago had Peter talking with the Islanders with most thinking Savard. Their coach happens to be the former coach in Providence, and a capable team builder, so who might he want?? He knows Hamill's strengths and slow development. He knows Marchand's strengths which Islander fans would love. He knows that Ryder could provide some goals and he has the cap space.He has an aging center and could use some depth. Might swap Streit for Ference/Marchand/ Ryder, and throw in a draft choice. he gets a potential skilled center{Hamill}experience[Ference],stimulation[Marchand} and a skill set that needs motivation[ Ryder] The B's get Streit to go with Chara/Seidenberg/Boychuck/Stuart/Hunwick and McQuaid plus a draft pick or young prospect.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from pbergeron37. Show pbergeron37's posts

    Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK???

    I will happily admit that I am not an expert on the Colorado Avalanche, or Liles NAS, I don't have time to watch every game in the league. What I do understand however, is that in this NHL, a players value is a function of his production and his contract, which wasn't the case pre-lockout, so your comment doesn't entirely make sense.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK???

    In Response to Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK???:
    I will happily admit that I am not an expert on the Colorado Avalanche, or Liles NAS, I don't have time to watch every game in the league. What I do understand however, is that in this NHL, a players value is a function of his production and his contract, which wasn't the case pre-lockout, so your comment doesn't entirely make sense.
    Posted by pbergeron37


    My comment makes perfect sense.  You post a lot, and the majority of it is either repeating what someone else has said or out of your ace.

    Talent first, contract second.

    You start with this:

    "Maybe this. Hunwick, Ryder, 2nd rounder, Marchand for Liles and a low grade prospect, but I just don't see it happening."

    You're advocating giving up all of that for a recent press box resident.

    Then you end with this:

    "... I don't mind sending more the other way if we get a guy with a better contract."

    You're stating that a contract is more valuable than talent.

    It isn't.

    Talent first, contract second.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from pbergeron37. Show pbergeron37's posts

    Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK???

    nope, not in this NHL. There are exceptions of course, the superstars, but I take Bergeron or Krejci of Lecavalier because a players value is a function of their production, and their cap hit....i repeat myself because some people have trouble reading thoroughly, or understanding simple things
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK???

    In Response to Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK???:
    nope, not in this NHL. There are exceptions of course, the superstars, but I take Bergeron or Krejci of Lecavalier because a players value is a function of their production, and their cap hit....i repeat myself because some people have trouble reading thoroughly, or understanding simple things
    Posted by pbergeron37


    No contract has ever won the Cup. 

    Talent first, contract second.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Neelybestallaround. Show Neelybestallaround's posts

    Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK???

    In Response to Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK???:
    In Response to Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK??? : My comment makes perfect sense.  You post a lot, and the majority of it is either repeating what someone else has said or out of your ace. Talent first, contract second. You start with this: "Maybe this. Hunwick, Ryder, 2nd rounder, Marchand for Liles and a low grade prospect, but I just don't see it happening." You're advocating giving up all of that for a recent press box resident. Then you end with this: "... I don't mind sending more the other way if we get a guy with a better contract." You're stating that a contract is more valuable than talent. It isn't. Talent first, contract second.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot


    Nice work NOS- More & more PB is exposing his hockey knowledge less & less & I love it when a fraud gets exposed! Now if we can only start working on others! Xemius, Sox fan & others. We might actually be able to have a decent forum with actual knowledgeable fans. Not ones that just speak out of the wrong hole of their body!
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from eddy75. Show eddy75's posts

    Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK???

    In Response to Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK???:
    In Response to Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK??? : No contract has ever won the Cup.  Talent first, contract second.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot

    I have to reiterate this point. Players win cups, contracts don't. Get the guys who can win first, then sort out how you build the team around them. Unfortunately the Bruins have been taking the exact opposite approach for too many years now. 

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from eddy75. Show eddy75's posts

    Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK???

    In Response to Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK???:
    nope, not in this NHL. There are exceptions of course, the superstars, but I take Bergeron or Krejci of Lecavalier because a players value is a function of their production, and their cap hit....i repeat myself because some people have trouble reading thoroughly, or understanding simple things
    Posted by pbergeron37


    Bergeron's my favorite Bruin but he's the last guy I'd ever use as an example of a good value player. He's not. He's way, way overpaid for what he brings to the table and has been since the day he signed his last deal. $4.75m per season in cap space is just too much for what Bergeron brings to the table by at least $1m per season. 

    For comparison, Eric Staal also signed his 2nd big league deal the same off season as Bergeron FOR LESS than Bergie even after scoring 40 goals, putting up 100+ points and leading his team in scoring through the playoffs and all the way to winning the Stanley Cup. (Staal signed a 3 year deal on July 1, 2006 for $13.5m or an annual cap hit of $4.5m; Bergeron signed for $23.75m for 5 years or an annual cap hit of $4.75m in August 2006)
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from duinne. Show duinne's posts

    Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK???

    In Response to Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK???:
    In Response to Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK??? : Bergeron's my favorite Bruin but he's the last guy I'd ever use as an example of a good value player. He's not. He's way, way overpaid for what he brings to the table and has been since the day he signed his last deal. $4.75m per season in cap space is just too much for what Bergeron brings to the table by at least $1m per season.  For comparison, Eric Staal also signed his 2nd big league deal the same off season as Bergeron FOR LESS than Bergie even after scoring 40 goals, putting up 100+ points and leading his team in scoring through the playoffs and all the way to winning the Stanley Cup. (Staal signed a 3 year deal on July 1, 2006 for $13.5m or an annual cap hit of $4.5m; Bergeron signed for $23.75m for 5 years or an annual cap hit of $4.75m in August 2006)
    posted by eddy75


    There are way too many variables to compare contracts like this. Cap space on the respective teams, for one thing, is a huge factor. Or one player may be satisfied with less, or have a less ambitious agent, or be compensated with other sweetners (such as a NTC). Another factor, related to the cap hit, is the supporting cast. For example, what kind of players did Bergeron have around him in 2006, compared to now? And of course, Bergeron suffered a life-threatening injury that took him more than a season to recover from. Who knows what heights he would have gained if that hadn't happened?


     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK???

    In Response to Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK???:
    In Response to Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK??? : Nice work NOS- More & more PB is exposing his hockey knowledge less & less & I love it when a fraud gets exposed! Now if we can only start working on others! Xemius, Sox fan & others. We might actually be able to have a decent forum with actual knowledgeable fans. Not ones that just speak out of the wrong hole of their body!Posted by Neelybestallaround


    "Get rid of Ryder,Wheeler & Ference before anyone else to make cap space!"

    ^This is knowledgeable and it's your signature ? Wow what revelation! You just spoke out of the wrong body part. I don't always agree with Pbergeron37 or SoxFanInIL but they have much, much more hockey knowledge than you!
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from biggskye. Show biggskye's posts

    Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK???

    In Response to Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK???:
    In Response to Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK??? : No contract has ever won the Cup.  Talent first, contract second.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot


       But a few bad contracts can prevent you from winning a cup.
    Your saying talent before contract, but IMO, you cannot seperate the two.
    A player like Bergeron, for example, would be a GREAT player @ 3M cap hit, a GOOD player @ 4M cap hit, and a liability @ 6M +.
    Most trades are now salary cap deals.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK???

    In Response to Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK???:
    In Response to Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK??? :    But a few bad contracts can prevent you from winning a cup. Your saying talent before contract, but IMO, you cannot seperate the two. A player like Bergeron, for example, would be a GREAT player @ 3M cap hit, a GOOD player @ 4M cap hit, and a liability @ 6M +. Most trades are now salary cap deals.
    Posted by biggskye


    Sharpe, Campbell, Huet...Cup!

    In all seriousness, yes, I'm aware that bad deals can tie the hands of a good team.  The poster in question seems to think it's good practice to trade extra talent in order to get extra cap space in return.  It's not.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from biggskye. Show biggskye's posts

    Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK???

       Thanks for responding not-a-shot.
    It's good to know I can post again.
    I got booted by the prude police for my 4 girl avatar. Hope the bear I now have isn't a female, or I could be in trouble again :)
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from screw-cindy-and-ovie. Show screw-cindy-and-ovie's posts

    Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK???

    In Response to Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK???:
    In Response to Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK??? : Sharpe, Campbell, Huet...Cup! In all seriousness, yes, I'm aware that bad deals can tie the hands of a good team.  The poster in question seems to think it's good practice to trade extra talent in order to get extra cap space in return.  It's not.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot

    Sharp's 3.9 is definately not a bad contract. Huet and Campbell on the other hand...
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK???

    NAS, you have to consider the upcoming free-agent class.

    If I know that there are 3 quality guys that I want, I may try to get a couple cheap contracts of servicable players, so I can allocate my resources towards free-agency, and still have talent around them.

    Also, if your core is in place, trading for underpayed guys, may be a wise move to fill out your roster (if you're up against the cap wall).  I would put the bruins in this category. 
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK???

    In Response to Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK???:
    In Response to Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK??? : Bergeron's my favorite Bruin but he's the last guy I'd ever use as an example of a good value player. He's not. He's way, way overpaid for what he brings to the table and has been since the day he signed his last deal. $4.75m per season in cap space is just too much for what Bergeron brings to the table by at least $1m per season.  For comparison, Eric Staal also signed his 2nd big league deal the same off season as Bergeron FOR LESS than Bergie even after scoring 40 goals, putting up 100+ points and leading his team in scoring through the playoffs and all the way to winning the Stanley Cup. (Staal signed a 3 year deal on July 1, 2006 for $13.5m or an annual cap hit of $4.5m; Bergeron signed for $23.75m for 5 years or an annual cap hit of $4.75m in August 2006)
    Posted by eddy75

    you are talking about a 3 year deal as opposed to 5 years.That is exactly the problem in anaheim right now.Ryan is willing to sign for the money offered but only if it is for 3 years or less so he can cash in later.I am sure that Staal made  considerabley more than Bergy over the 5 year span you speak of.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK???

    In Response to Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK???:
    In Response to Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK??? : Bergeron's my favorite Bruin but he's the last guy I'd ever use as an example of a good value player. He's not. He's way, way overpaid for what he brings to the table and has been since the day he signed his last deal. $4.75m per season in cap space is just too much for what Bergeron brings to the table by at least $1m per season.  For comparison, Eric Staal also signed his 2nd big league deal the same off season as Bergeron FOR LESS than Bergie even after scoring 40 goals, putting up 100+ points and leading his team in scoring through the playoffs and all the way to winning the Stanley Cup. (Staal signed a 3 year deal on July 1, 2006 for $13.5m or an annual cap hit of $4.5m; Bergeron signed for $23.75m for 5 years or an annual cap hit of $4.75m in August 2006)
    Posted by eddy75

    Staal  made 8.25 in his next deal meaning he got 30 million over the same 5 year span.That is why Bergy isn't a bad deal after all.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK???

    In Response to Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK???:
    In Response to Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK??? : Staal  made 8.25 in his next deal meaning he got 30 million over the same 5 year span.That is why Bergy isn't a bad deal after all.
    Posted by dezaruchi


    (please note, I am expanding on your point, not disagreeing w you)....There is a difference between was a bad deal and is a bad deal.

    If you are going to call Bergeron's contract a "bad deal", you have to preface your statement w something like: "due to unforseeable events" or "in hindsight"...Because if you just say that it was a "bad deal", that implies it was a bad signing at the time, which isnt the case here (IMO).  The deal assumed that Bergy would be a full-blown superstar for years 4 and 5.  He was supposed to be overpaid in the beginning and underpaid at the end (like how most "potential contracts" are structured).  

    I 100% agree with you that it was a good deal at the time (and agree with your rationale that the beauty of it was the fact that it was for 5 yrs) , but the fact remains that due to reasons beyond Bergy's control (concussion), we are not on pace to realize 100% of the value in that deal.  I think that should be iterated.

    Moving to stricty forward thinking...If Bergy was a free-agent right now and would consider only a 1 yr contract, do you think a team would be willing to go up to 4.75M for his services in 2010-2011? 
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from eddy75. Show eddy75's posts

    Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK???

    In Response to Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK???:
    In Response to Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK??? : There are way too many variables to compare contracts like this. Cap space on the respective teams, for one thing, is a huge factor. Or one player may be satisfied with less, or have a less ambitious agent, or be compensated with other sweetners (such as a NTC). Another factor, related to the cap hit, is the supporting cast. For example, what kind of players did Bergeron have around him in 2006, compared to now? And of course, Bergeron suffered a life-threatening injury that took him more than a season to recover from. Who knows what heights he would have gained if that hadn't happened?
    Posted by duinne


    Bergeron was never going to be what some people thought he was but that's a whole other argument. I gave a concrete example of a young player (same age as Bergeron at the time) who was (and is) better than Bergeron and who signed a deal for less than Bergeron did. He wasn't the only one that summer, just the best example. Chiarelli overpaid for Bergeron - it was a nice gesture by a team that's been run by a skin flint owner but there's no getting around the fact that it's a poor value contract.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from eddy75. Show eddy75's posts

    Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK???

    In Response to Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK???:
    In Response to Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK??? : Staal  made 8.25 in his next deal meaning he got 30 million over the same 5 year span.That is why Bergy isn't a bad deal after all.
    Posted by dezaruchi


    And Staal IS a better player and proved that over his 3 year deal, which is why he got 8.25 per year after the fact. If Bergeron had signed a 3 year deal, no way he would have gotten anything close on a follow up deal.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from eddy75. Show eddy75's posts

    Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK???

    In Response to Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK???:
    In Response to Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK??? : (please note, I am expanding on your point, not disagreeing w you)....There is a difference between was a bad deal and is a bad deal. If you are going to call Bergeron's contract a "bad deal", you have to preface your statement w something like: "due to unforseeable events" or "in hindsight"...Because if you just say that it was a "bad deal", that implies it was a bad signing at the time, which isnt the case here (IMO).  The deal assumed that Bergy would be a full-blown superstar for years 4 and 5.  He was supposed to be overpaid in the beginning and underpaid at the end (like how most "potential contracts" are structured).   I 100% agree with you that it was a good deal at the time (and agree with your rationale that the beauty of it was the fact that it was for 5 yrs) , but the fact remains that due to reasons beyond Bergy's control (concussion), we are not on pace to realize 100% of the value in that deal.  I think that should be iterated. Moving to stricty forward thinking...If Bergy was a free-agent right now and would consider only a 1 yr contract, do you think a team would be willing to go up to 4.75M for his services in 2010-2011? 
    Posted by Drewski5


    I disagree. At the time, I said it wasn't a good deal because the Bs were overpaying likely through the whole contract. Bergeron is not, nor will he ever be Joe Sakic but it seems that's what the Bs expected him to be. He's a solid hockey player, with excellent hockey sense who likes to compete but he doesn't (and never did) have as many skills as some other NHLers that are superstars but that's something the Bs overlooked.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK???

    In Response to Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK???:
    In Response to Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK??? : I disagree. At the time, I said it wasn't a good deal because the Bs were overpaying likely through the whole contract. Bergeron is not, nor will he ever be Joe Sakic but it seems that's what the Bs expected him to be. He's a solid hockey player, with excellent hockey sense who likes to compete but he doesn't (and never did) have as many skills as some other NHLers that are superstars but that's something the Bs overlooked.
    Posted by eddy75


    Specifics?  He scored 31 goals with 42 assists at 21 years old, so you arent talking about big time scoring.  He definately showed that he could do that (pre-injury).
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK???

    In Response to Re: Who Thinks This Trade Is OK???:
    NAS, you have to consider the upcoming free-agent class. If I know that there are 3 quality guys that I want, I may try to get a couple cheap contracts of servicable players, so I can allocate my resources towards free-agency, and still have talent around them. Also, if your core is in place, trading for underpayed guys, may be a wise move to fill out your roster (if you're up against the cap wall).  I would put the bruins in this category. 
    Posted by Drewski5


    You can't make deals during the season with thoughts of who is going to be a free agent that summer.  Far too many variables.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share