radical idea for Sturm...

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

    Re: radical idea for Sturm...

    In Response to radical idea for Sturm...:
    I know everyone is racking their brain, trying to figure out the cap problem...something Jack Edwards said matter of factly during the game last night gave me an idea. He basically said that PC is in the drivers seat as far as having to pull the trigger on something beacuse even when the returning players are healthy...PC, can simply say..."No...I don't think he's ready in my opinion...so...he'll have to wait" I was under the impression that once they are cleared by the Doctors...essentially we have to place them on the roster. If Jack is right (and I'm not saying he is)...couldn't PC play hardball with Sturm...and refuse to put him back in the lineup...eventually "persuading" (not blackmailing lol) Sturm to waive his NTC? If so I believe we are better off keeping Wjeeler & Ryder over Sturm because a) They are both playing better this year b) they are both younger than Sturm and c) they both seem to stay healthy, whereas Sturm's ongoing health would be in question. Could this tactic, if used, be enough to clear room for Savard? Anyone know? Or maybe this tactic combined with some 4th line demotions/shuffling...basically the point being...could we keep the lineup we have now (including Wheeler & Ryder), and add Savard? Comments?..........
    Posted by macdogcharm


    The NHL and the NHLPA would be all over that kind of idea crying foul.  Couldn't be done.

    The doctors only deal with the player's health; not conditioning.  Once the doctor gives the player clearance, it's up to CJ, PC, and the player to determine whether or not he is ready to return to the ice (i.e. game shape or game ready).  If it was longer than normal and proven to be false then it would be in violation of the CBA.


     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: radical idea for Sturm...

    It wouldn't be so much as "I don't think you're ready" as it would be "There is no room and I'm not making any right now." 

    There is nothing that is in place to force the Bruins to make room for a player who returns from injury. 
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: radical idea for Sturm...

    In Response to Re: radical idea for Sturm...:
    It wouldn't be so much as "I don't think you're ready" as it would be "There is no room and I'm not making any right now."  There is nothing that is in place to force the Bruins to make room for a player who returns from injury. 
    Posted by Not-A-Shot

    The fraud thing you mentioned earlier covers that.An insurance company and the cap would both frown on the Bruins telling a healthy player he can't play.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Orrthebest. Show Orrthebest's posts

    Re: radical idea for Sturm...

    In Response to radical idea for Sturm...:
    I know everyone is racking their brain, trying to figure out the cap problem...something Jack Edwards said matter of factly during the game last night gave me an idea. He basically said that PC is in the drivers seat as far as having to pull the trigger on something beacuse even when the returning players are healthy...PC, can simply say..."No...I don't think he's ready in my opinion...so...he'll have to wait" I was under the impression that once they are cleared by the Doctors...essentially we have to place them on the roster. If Jack is right (and I'm not saying he is)...couldn't PC play hardball with Sturm...and refuse to put him back in the lineup...eventually "persuading" (not blackmailing lol) Sturm to waive his NTC? If so I believe we are better off keeping Wjeeler & Ryder over Sturm because a) They are both playing better this year b) they are both younger than Sturm and c) they both seem to stay healthy, whereas Sturm's ongoing health would be in question. Could this tactic, if used, be enough to clear room for Savard? Anyone know? Or maybe this tactic combined with some 4th line demotions/shuffling...basically the point being...could we keep the lineup we have now (including Wheeler & Ryder), and add Savard? Comments?..........
    Posted by macdogcharm


    I am not racking my brain.  Trade Ryder and wave Paile and were golden.  The only one who are racking their brains are the ones who want to keep the worst minus player on the team.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: radical idea for Sturm...

    In Response to Re: radical idea for Sturm...:
    In Response to Re: radical idea for Sturm... : The fraud thing you mentioned earlier covers that.An insurance company and the cap would both frown on the Bruins telling a healthy player he can't play.
    Posted by dezaruchi


    Neither would frown upon it.  When the player comes off LTIR, the insurance company is off the hook.  He is not on the NHL team's books, however, until they activate him.  The NHL can't force the Bruins to trade someone in order to make room.

    The Flyers dealt with something similar with Briere coming back, and ended up waiving Metro while sending a couple of guys to the minors.  I think Briere was held back a few games because of this.

    Either way, it's all moo (cow's opinion) because the Bruins want Sturm in the lineup.  He's a legit scoring threat who plays defense and carries a reasonable contract.  They'll 86 Ryder to get Sturm back in the lineup.


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

    Re: radical idea for Sturm...

    As stated in other threads, it appears to be simple numbers. When Savvy comes back the numbers indicate that Ryder will go, probably along with Paille. When Sturm is ready the decision may be much simpler
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: radical idea for Sturm...

    In Response to Re: radical idea for Sturm...:
    In Response to Re: radical idea for Sturm... : Neither would frown upon it.  When the player comes off LTIR, the insurance company is off the hook.  He is not on the NHL team's books, however, until they activate him.  The NHL can't force the Bruins to trade someone in order to make room. The Flyers dealt with something similar with Briere coming back, and ended up waiving Metro while sending a couple of guys to the minors.  I think Briere was held back a few games because of this. Either way, it's all moo (cow's opinion) because the Bruins want Sturm in the lineup.  He's a legit scoring threat who plays defense and carries a reasonable contract.  They'll 86 Ryder to get Sturm back in the lineup.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot

    I guess what I'm getting at is that Sturm has to be paid(every day I would think).The league would feel it isn't their problem who has to move,just that the cap is 59.4m.I think the league could absolutely force a move  or moves on the Bruins.If they can just keep paying him but only activate Sturm whenever they feel like it,wouldn't that render the cap rather impotent.I'm not arguing as you may very well be right.I'm just surprised as this smells of obvious circumvention.I also agree 100% on wanting Sturm back in the lineup.He makes up for any scoring lost in Ryder and PK  work from Paille. 
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Re: radical idea for Sturm...


    If I play gm and an offer of sturm for Ryder and Wheeler is made to me with the current lineup and Bruins current situation, I'd make that move in a heart beat.

    Ryder's flame will dim.  Wheeler is giving it all he's got and it's quite plain that he will struggle to score 20 this year.  Despite what Stanley's delusions are.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: radical idea for Sturm...

    In Response to Re: radical idea for Sturm...:
    In Response to radical idea for Sturm... : I am not racking my brain.  Trade Ryder and wave Paile and were golden.  The only one who are racking their brains are the ones who want to keep the worst minus player on the team. Posted by Orrthebest


    I'm not either Ryder can be sent down to Providence then be brought back up with the black aces then the Bruins don't have to risk Michael being claimed where the Bruins would have to pay for half his salary on re-entry waivers. Ryder could be an extra forward during the playoffs reserved for injuries.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: radical idea for Sturm...

    In Response to Re: radical idea for Sturm...:
    In Response to Re: radical idea for Sturm... : I'm not either Ryder can be sent down to Providence then be brought back up with the black aces then the Bruins don't have to risk Michael being claimed where the Bruins would have to pay for half his salary on re-entry waivers. Ryder could be an extra forward during the playoffs reserved for injuries.
    Posted by SanDogBrewin


    Why wouldn't they have to worry about him being claimed?
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: radical idea for Sturm...

    "Ryder could be recalled for the playoffs without going through re-entry waivers. If Boston tried an in-season recall, a team could get him at half his salary."

    Now that is where you could use your new button "the plagiarism copy n pasted was wrong". I then in turn would have to tell person from Nhlscap.com who sent me this answer that he's reported and to defer complicated answers to his supervisor which probably wouldn't help either.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from macdogcharm. Show macdogcharm's posts

    Re: radical idea for Sturm...

    by my count...there are at least 3 of you respondants here who say "trade/det rid of Ryder"...whether Ryder is better/worse than Sturm is NOT THE ISSUE. The issue is a) NOBODY ELSE IN THE LEAGUE WILL TAKE RYDER!!! (why can't people get that through their heads??) andb) because of age difference and propensity to become injured....is Sturm "better" than Ryder in the long run. To say "Trade Ryder & waive Paille" is stooooopid...nobody will take ryder's contract...EVERYBODY knows that.....

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: radical idea for Sturm...

    In Response to Re: radical idea for Sturm...:
    by my count...there are at least 3 of you respondants here who say "trade/det rid of Ryder"...whether Ryder is better/worse than Sturm is NOT THE ISSUE. The issue is a) NOBODY ELSE IN THE LEAGUE WILL TAKE RYDER!!! (why can't people get that through their heads??) andb) because of age difference and propensity to become injured....is Sturm "better" than Ryder in the long run. To say "Trade Ryder & waive Paille" is stooooopid...nobody will take ryder's contract...EVERYBODY knows that.....
    Posted by macdogcharm

    If you don't think a team like Atlanta would take on Ryder if it meant a shot at making the play-offs then you're being too narrow minded in your dislike of Ryder.With pretty much a quarter of the season gone,a team would only pay approximately 3m for his services and not be tied in any longer.Stempniak seemed untradeable for the Leafs last year but managed a real resurgence after he was dealt.But you can go on telling us what "everybody"knows and how  stupid we are.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from macdogcharm. Show macdogcharm's posts

    Re: radical idea for Sturm...

     Dez
    how you managed to get the idea I dislike Ryder is a mystery....If anything, I've been putting Ryder ABOVE Marco Sturm, if you read my posts carefully. The statement that he is untradeable beacuse of his bloated contract is fact...not my opinion. I'd love to have somebody like Atlanta (or whoever) take him on...but I don't believe in santa or the easter bunny either......
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: radical idea for Sturm...

    Talking about Sturm, IF you could get him to waive his NTC (a massive IF), would this be an opportunity for PC to not settle for just getting the cap under control, but going BIG instead, and upgrading the team with a more drastic move.
    For example, (and this is just spitballing) there's been a lot of talk that Iggy is on the block oiut in Calgary. Could you use this as an opportuinity to say send a package of (for example) Ryder, Ference, Sturm, Wheeler and a pick (not TO's) and/or a prospect for Iggy and say Mark Giordano (potentially that puck moving d we all want, who would do better in a new system). Not saying this is even necessarily viable (I do think though that the cap room works even with Savvy in the lineup). Just pointing out that PC has a lot of options, including going for a big deal and not just making smaller moves to get under the cap. Something that would bring an upgrade on both Ryder and Sturm and solidify the D, and it could work with a team like Calgary that looks to need a complete rebuild.
    Just an idea.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from duinne. Show duinne's posts

    Re: radical idea for Sturm...

    In Response to radical idea for Sturm...:
    I know everyone is racking their brain, trying to figure out the cap problem...something Jack Edwards said matter of factly during the game last night gave me an idea. He basically said that PC is in the drivers seat as far as having to pull the trigger on something beacuse even when the returning players are healthy...PC, can simply say..."No...I don't think he's ready in my opinion...so...he'll have to wait" I was under the impression that once they are cleared by the Doctors...essentially we have to place them on the roster. If Jack is right (and I'm not saying he is)...couldn't PC play hardball with Sturm...and refuse to put him back in the lineup...eventually "persuading" (not blackmailing lol) Sturm to waive his NTC? If so I believe we are better off keeping Wjeeler & Ryder over Sturm because a) They are both playing better this year b) they are both younger than Sturm and c) they both seem to stay healthy, whereas Sturm's ongoing health would be in question. Could this tactic, if used, be enough to clear room for Savard? Anyone know? Or maybe this tactic combined with some 4th line demotions/shuffling...basically the point being...could we keep the lineup we have now (including Wheeler & Ryder), and add Savard? Comments?..........
    Posted by macdogcharm


    So you're basically advocating that the Bruins treat a 13-year veteran, 20-goal scorer, rehabbing player who's worn the "A," who has a no trade clause, a home and a family with children in school in the Boston area, like dirt?

    Great idea. Just try it, and you can kiss any free agent you ever want to land in the future goodbye.



     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from BsLegion. Show BsLegion's posts

    Re: radical idea for Sturm...

    Sturm is to fragile. Whatever the Bruins do I hope it doesn't backfire when Sturm gets hurt again on one of those knees just like Markov on the Habs.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: radical idea for Sturm...

    In Response to Re: radical idea for Sturm...:
    In Response to radical idea for Sturm... : So you're basically advocating that the Bruins treat a 13-year veteran, 20-goal scorer, rehabbing player who's worn the "A," who has a no trade clause, a home and a family with children in school in the Boston area, like dirt? Great idea. Just try it, and you can kiss any free agent you ever want to land in the future goodbye.
    Posted by duinne


    Oh here we go again.  Players understand business decisions.  Why not just call it GM suicide?
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from duinne. Show duinne's posts

    Re: radical idea for Sturm...

    Bullying Sturm into waiving his NTC would not be a "business decision," it would be the tactic of an underhanded cretin, and would destroy the reputation of Boston as a desired free-agent destination that Chiarelli, Neely and the rest of the F.O. have worked so hard to establish.

    I'm sure there are some here who don't care what kind of organization (or what kind of players it employs) the Bruins are, but there are plenty of us that do. I for one am proud of their reputation as a first-class organization that takes care of its staff (and alumni). 

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: radical idea for Sturm...

    In Response to Re: radical idea for Sturm...:
    Bullying Sturm into waiving his NTC would not be a "business decision," it would be the tactic of an underhanded cretin, and would destroy the reputation of Boston as a desired free-agent destination that Chiarelli, Neely and the rest of the F.O. have worked so hard to establish. I'm sure there are some here who don't care what kind of organization (or what kind of players it employs) the Bruins are, but there are plenty of us that do. I for one am proud of their reputation as a first-class organization that takes care of its staff (and alumni).   
    Posted by duinne




    Sure, that's one way to look at it.  Here's another:

    "Hey Marco, we're playing great and all is looking good for us.  We just don't have the room to play you, or the cap space either for that matter.  We can either leave you in limbo or we can trade you.  It's up to you."

    It's a business decision, a legitimate one, and I can't imagine free agent over the summer looking at a winning team offering a good contract using this as a reason to sign somewhere else.  The B's have shown very good faith with Chara, Bergeron and Thomas.   Not screwing up a good team playing well in order to insert a player to avoid hurting his feelings is not going to destroy everything the front office has done over the past few years.

    Plus, who would they miss out on?  Mike Modano?  LOL
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: radical idea for Sturm...

    In Response to Re: radical idea for Sturm...:
     Dez how you managed to get the idea I dislike Ryder is a mystery....If anything, I've been putting Ryder ABOVE Marco Sturm, if you read my posts carefully. The statement that he is untradeable beacuse of his bloated contract is fact...not my opinion. I'd love to have somebody like Atlanta (or whoever) take him on...but I don't believe in santa or the easter bunny either......
    Posted by macdogcharm

    So it's his contract you dislike.No difference for our argument.Stempniak got traded last year while playing worse than Ryder and making similar money(3.5m).It's only a matter of finding a team with a particular need.He is,by no means,untradeable and you calling it fact doesn't make it so.Let's agree to wait and see what happens and then pick up the debate later.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from duinne. Show duinne's posts

    Re: radical idea for Sturm...

    It's not "avoiding hurting his feelings," it's living up to a contract that was signed in good faith. If Sturm is healthy, he can and should play.

    You can't stab a player in the back and expect anyone else to offer his loyalty to your organization. You can joke about "Mike Modano," but not only could there be free agents the Bruins might want sometime down the road, but players in trades as well. What if someone like Nathan Horton, for example, said, "Boston? No way I'm waiving my NTC to go there."

    Whatever Chiarelli chooses or is forced to do, I'm sure he'll do so with fairness and a full explanation to the player(s) involved. As I said in another thread, Dan Paille said the big difference between being a healthy scratch in Boston and in Buffalo is that in Boston he's kept informed and treated fairly, whereas in Buffalo he was kept in the dark and was offered no explanations whatsoever. Players talk to each other, and they are well aware of which organizations treat their players as human beings, rather than objects. Yes, it does make a difference, and that difference could be critical sometime in the future.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: radical idea for Sturm...

    And for the rest of the guys on the team?  Should they be thrilled that the team is so player friendly that it would break up the current great chemistry to fit someone else in?

    How would the B's not be living up to their contract?  Sturm would be getting every penny he deserved. 

    Furthermore, can you offer an example from recent history of a team committing this level of GM suicide and a future players signing elsewhere because of it?
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: radical idea for Sturm...

    I think the distinction is between trying to strong-arm Sturm and laying the cards on the table for him and giving him some options and choices - much the way they've dealt with Paille really.  But yeah - moo point indeed.  They can't make any move with Sturm until he's added to the roster.  He has to spend one day on waivers before he goes anywhere, so they can't just add him and then waive him.  And no one will trade for a guy returning after his second major knee injury before he's played a game.  So...Mooooooo.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: radical idea for Sturm...

    I must admit that Boston has come a long way in the last decade as far as how players view the organization.Bill Guerin told me about 10 years ago that nobody wanted to go to Boston.It seems like Boston has become one of the more desireable organizations since then and treating players with respect must certainly help.Either way PC won't be able to please everyone.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share