should have signed Horton

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Canadianfan6. Show Canadianfan6's posts

    Re: should have signed Horton

    No the mistake is by Horton!

    Losing the chance to play with great  linemates and a chance to win.

     

     

     
  2. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: should have signed Horton

    Hey Marco, are you the same guy who used to post here a couple of seasons back? Not important, I just wonder where you went.


    "wow,check out all of the losers in here......"

    -Gerry Dee
     

     
  4. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: should have signed Horton

    In response to asmaha's comment:

    a) Rask needs to be signed

    b) Concussion history

    c) Who says the Bs didn't try to extend him? Players want to go to UFA and get paid.

    d) You can't just throw money at players who sleepwalk through the regular season and have a good playoffs.

    I like Horton. I think he's an excellent player. So do a bunch of GMs, and he'll get a sizeable contract. But if salary has to be dumped, his isn't the worst contract to go. Let's chill and see where the chips fall. Another forward will be added. We just don't know how it's going to piece together yet.




    ^All of this!

     

    PS. I really didn't like Nathan's attitude allot of the time after Geoff Wards dry-eraser-whiteboard instructions anyway. Real attitude problem Tongue Out

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: should have signed Horton

    In response to marco0863's comment:

     



    first off cap geek says over 5m in cap space - add savard thats 9m in cap space

     

    second of all u damn right if my veterans cannot conribute then replace them with rookies cuz allthey will be doing is waiting for their contracts to be over and get rid of them

    Fletch u serious- i mean really ur considering krug over horton- man i see u guys have not wisened up much . 

    Dennis seidenberg- will be 34 when he's a free agent mr fletch- iu can probably bet they will not  re sign him- he's a great defensive dman but in all likelihood he will not be re-signed

     

    Thornton?  write this down - he's gone! bye!

    Btw- thye cap is increasing next year- Now Fletch mabe the bruins can slip u and ur confreres a few but i might be a little to wise- no offence really but i see no attempt in understanding . keep in mind that this cap stuff is really not my forte but i do believe i have shown where yhe $ can come from

    Laso- Rask no more then 6.5 m- big max 

    horton - 6m max 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You say Rask at $6.5 and Horton at $6.0... 

    Any idea what those two numbers add up to?  You said $9m in space right.  Just using your words here...

    I can only give you the info marco, I can't make you understand it any better than I can teach a monkey algebra.

    We've done what we can here.  Ciao.

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

    Re: should have signed Horton


       The reports had Boston trying to trade Seguin and/or Peverley, in order to free up cap space to re-sign Horton.

    As soon as Horton's agent announced that his client was not interested in coming back, they quit trying to trade either player.

    BOSTON WANTED HORTON...HORTON DIDN'T WANT BOSTON.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: should have signed Horton

    I'm done with Marco as well. Appearently it's as easy as putting people on LTIR (like Savard right?) or buying contracts out. PC was willinmg to gamble on Bergeron due to him being a far superior player and more time in between head shots. Ok, now i'm done.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: should have signed Horton

    Horton:  I love me jobs with the Bs but me hockey years a numbered.  So I look to the five year fix then say I want to play another SCF, sound familar?  I am a huge Horton supporter, he scores in the playoffs.  I am also a capitalist.  So is Horton.  PC is a capitalist with a budget.  End of the subject.  Too bad Horton could have made money in endorsements in the years to come, something agents do not engage in when talking contracts.  Shades of Johnny Damon!  

    Don't judge me monkey!

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: should have signed Horton

    One thread was enough for me to put cactus Marco on ignore. What a moron.


    "wow,check out all of the losers in here......"

    -Gerry Dee
     

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: should have signed Horton

    winthecup and marco are the same poster.  One is already banned, the other is about to be.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Re: should have signed Horton

    In response to dezaruchi's comment:

    Hey Marco, are you the same guy who used to post here a couple of seasons back? Not important, I just wonder where you went.


    "wow,check out all of the losers in here......"

    -Gerry Dee
     



    Proven it was the same Marco by the thread he started to call me out.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from DrCC. Show DrCC's posts

    Re: should have signed Horton

    Anyone else suspect that the "no buyouts" policy for Chiarelli is because he'd gotten enough interest in trying to trade Peverley that he won't lose him for nothing?

    As for Horton, yes it would be possible for the Bruins to sign him for something like $5M; and maybe it could still happen.  However, it would mean drastically altering either the defense or the lower half of the forwards.  Remember how frustrating it was when the Bruins weren't getting any production out of those lines?  This is a team that thrives on depth, and it becomes a huge gamble to maintain it with Horton getting a big contract.

    -- Proud user of Chambraigne; Now with Wiener Scent! --

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: should have signed Horton

    PC undoubtedly went through layers of thinking.  Consequently so did Horton and his agent.  Something on the order of:

    1.  PC: I need to rid cap space. Lesser of players first.

    2.  NHL Teams: to early to take on Peverly, Kelly, or McQuaid salaries.

    3.  Horton et al:  Why should we take a hometown discount with Seguin getting a huge raise for being a party boy non excellance. 

    4.  PC: The Bs cannot offer you 6 million as we need to rid cap $ with Rask asking for 7 million.

    5.  PC:  Bergeron needs to be offered an extention now as the cap goes up significantly next year. Sends a message to other players especially Seguin.

    6.  Horton et al: Free agency is the only option.

    7.  PC: wtfarckle Seguin is killing me.

    8.  NHL teams: King's ransom for Seguin??

    9. PC:  Public admonishment of Seguin out of frustration

    10.  PC: right winger and a Seguin trade gets Lacavalier and a draft pick.  

    11.  Horton et al: If Seguin is traded, Horton is in the mix.

    12.  PC: You can never go home again Nathan.

    It has to be a big trade or dump the lessers for nothing.   

    There is no best case scenario really.   

    Don't judge me monkey!

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

    Re: should have signed Horton

    In response to DrCC's comment:

    Anyone else suspect that the "no buyouts" policy for Chiarelli is because he'd gotten enough interest in trying to trade Peverley that he won't lose him for nothing?

     

    -- Proud user of Chambraigne; Now with Wiener Scent! --



    Absolutely it's a technique and good point. With any player, why wouldn't you say that you're keeping him, then try to shop their contract around so you don't lose them for nothing? I bet Vinny would have been picked up under his current contract if Yzerman had his wits about him. Same with Peverly or Kelly for that matter considering their average-sized contracts. SOMEONE will always over-pay, and might as well get a bag of pucks in return, not cost your GM cash and save the buyout for the extreme cases.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share