Bounce000 Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 (edited) There’s 3 Brockstars in the NHL now, 1 or 2 more and they can make an actual Brockstar band Edited July 29 by Bounce000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 Big bet on a guy that’s had one good season. One season total actually. Happy that this guy Adam Foxed the Kings though! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 Our Brockstar gets more ladies. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devron Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 9 minutes ago, DeNiro said: Big bet on a guy that’s had one good season. One season total actually. Happy that this guy Adam Foxed the Kings though! A lot of teams have been doing this. Someone is going to get burnt big time 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big D Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 22 minutes ago, Bounce000 said: There’s 3 Brockstars in the NHL now, 1 or 2 more and they can make an actual Brockstar band Three is enough to make a band. Jimi Hendrix experience, Nirvana, The Police, Rush are just a couple examples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diamonds Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 12 minutes ago, Devron said: A lot of teams have been doing this. Someone is going to get burnt big time Ottawa sort of has with Norris, though a lot of that has just been his injury issues. Stutzle, Tkachuk, and Sanderson are all looking great though. However I agree, someone is going to get burnt big time sooner or later. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Elias Pettersson Posted July 29 Popular Post Share Posted July 29 Hronek's contract looks like a steal now... 1 1 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoreanHockeyFan Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 45 minutes ago, Diamonds said: Ottawa sort of has with Norris, though a lot of that has just been his injury issues. Stutzle, Tkachuk, and Sanderson are all looking great though. However I agree, someone is going to get burnt big time sooner or later. On top of the Sens players you've mentioned, you could also add Tage Thompson, Jack Hughes, Kyrou, Robert Thomas...I think at some point, you could argue that the risk-reward ratio is good enough such that signing a promising young star to a 8-year deal right after their ELC is a decent call. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moeknows Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 Way premature and way too much $ based on a one year sample. Can you imagine what Huggy Bears gonna cost next contract...12 mill + ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 19 minutes ago, KoreanHockeyFan said: On top of the Sens players you've mentioned, you could also add Tage Thompson, Jack Hughes, Kyrou, Robert Thomas...I think at some point, you could argue that the risk-reward ratio is good enough such that signing a promising young star to a 8-year deal right after their ELC is a decent call. Yeah, not sure I can think of an 8 year deal handed out to a young star that has been a 'bad' signing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Coryberg Posted July 29 Popular Post Share Posted July 29 4 minutes ago, HKSR said: Yeah, not sure I can think of an 8 year deal handed out to a young star that has been a 'bad' signing. Pierre-Luc Dubious? 1 4 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 (edited) A risk, but he is a 21 year old RD that already played 25 minutes a game for a season successfully in his first year. This contract takes him to 30 and doesn’t have any anchor “old man years” at the end. Imagine where we would be cap wise if we signed Petterson and Hughes to max term deals off their ELC expiry? We would have a very rosy picture going forward instead of paying big market rates for them at the expiry of their bridge deals. Cap inflation makes these deals look good and even if the player doesn’t progress it will be a good deal. He would have to regress quite a bit to make it a bad deal. I would rate the upside of this being greater than the risk. Edited July 29 by Provost 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 Imagine if we only had a competent GM who focused on signing his young core to 8yr deals in Hughes and EP...Could have had both for around this AAV and term... BUT, instead Benning had a hard on for trading for Schmidt before either core Canuck was signed instead...I believe that is how it happened anyway!? 1 1 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sophomore Jinx Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 (edited) At the time he was drafted, it was thought he was lacking in the offensive part of the game, but he sure showed he has that last year, and this is a good deal for both sides, not bad for a mid 2nd round pick to have that security, and for the Wild to have him locked up too..... What The Experts Said Faber was a top-four defenseman for the NTDP. He’s an excellent skater. He is very good at closing on his checks, as well as turning up the ice and leading an attack with his speed. Faber can transition with his speed, but also makes a very good first pass and can move pucks well out of his zone. The main question on Faber is his offensive upside. He got power play time this season and has some puck-moving instincts, but his skill level and playmaking will never dazzle you. You’re drafting him for his skating, for how hard and well he defends, and hoping he has enough offense to play at the higher levels. Edited July 29 by Sophomore Jinx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJCF96 Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 25 minutes ago, Viking said: Imagine if we only had a competent GM who focused on signing his young core to 8yr deals in Hughes and EP...Could have had both for around this AAV and term... BUT, instead Benning had a hard on for trading for Schmidt before either core Canuck was signed instead...I believe that is how it happened anyway!? If only Benning never signed Beagle + Roussel to those bad contracts in 2018. Even with LE on the books, without Beagle and Roussel, we could've easily fit Pettersson and Huhges into long-term 8 year deals. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sophomore Jinx Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 4 minutes ago, RJCF96 said: If only Benning never signed Beagle + Roussel to those bad contracts in 2018. Even with LE on the books, without Beagle and Roussel, we could've easily fit Pettersson and Huhges into long-term 8 year deals. And Schaller at a couple mill was awful too 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devron Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 4 hours ago, Moeknows said: Way premature and way too much $ based on a one year sample. Can you imagine what Huggy Bears gonna cost next contract...12 mill + ?? Doesn’t matter what he costs. You pay him whatever he wants 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devron Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 2 hours ago, Sophomore Jinx said: And Schaller at a couple mill was awful too I don’t think Benning enjoyed negotiations very much. “How much are you looking for? Seems like a lot, ok” 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Diamonds Posted July 29 Popular Post Share Posted July 29 1 hour ago, RJCF96 said: If only Benning never signed Beagle + Roussel to those bad contracts in 2018. Even with LE on the books, without Beagle and Roussel, we could've easily fit Pettersson and Huhges into long-term 8 year deals. I actually really don't mind the Beagle and Roussel contracts, even with hindsight, other than them being a year too long. We were a bad team and sorely needed some vets to insulate our younger players. Beagle carried the heavily lifting defensively and on the PK which took pressure off Horvat, Pettersson, and even Miller. He literally averaged an OZ start % of 17.6% over this three seasons with the Canucks, the lowest in the entire NHL. A number of players also talked about how having him was like having an extra coach on the ice with them. Roussel had the similar "hard work pays off" story that Burrows did. Undrafted to an NHL regular and was actually producing quite well before he got injured. He showed our young players what it means to work for your spot in the NHL. Yes, we were a bad team and had to overpay both players to get them to come here and they should have been signed for 3 years instead of 4. But, I do think they played an important role in the development of our current core. 1 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 4 hours ago, Coryberg said: Pierre-Luc Dubious? Not QUITE the same tho... PLD was 25yo. That's closer to Hronek's age. Most of the guys we are talking about were 21 or 22yo at the time of their signing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devron Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 11 minutes ago, Diamonds said: I actually really don't mind the Beagle and Roussel contracts, even with hindsight, other than them being a year too long. We were a bad team and sorely needed some vets to insulate our younger players. Beagle carried the heavily lifting defensively and on the PK which took pressure off Horvat, Pettersson, and even Miller. He literally averaged an OZ start % of 17.6% over this three seasons with the Canucks, the lowest in the entire NHL. A number of players also talked about how having him was like having an extra coach on the ice with them. Roussel had the similar "hard work pays off" story that Burrows did. Undrafted to an NHL regular and was actually producing quite well before he got injured. He showed our young players what it means to work for your spot in the NHL. Yes, we were a bad team and had to overpay both players to get them to come here and they should have been signed for 3 years instead of 4. But, I do think they played an important role in the development of our current core. There definitely were some good things done back then but it’s just easier to put a blanket over it 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickenspear Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 3 hours ago, Sophomore Jinx said: And Schaller at a couple mill was awful too His trade return made it a little less maddening though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PureQuickness Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 3 hours ago, RJCF96 said: If only Benning never signed Beagle + Roussel to those bad contracts in 2018. Even with LE on the books, without Beagle and Roussel, we could've easily fit Pettersson and Huhges into long-term 8 year deals. There's no proof at all that they would've agreed to those deals. We don't know how much they would've asked for. For all we know, the bridge contracts were what they wanted so that they could double dip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Brodka Jr Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 LA messed that trade up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moeknows Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 1 hour ago, Devron said: Doesn’t matter what he costs. You pay him whatever he wants Really. Don't think you pay him whatever he wants...what if he wants 15/16 mill/year. You pay him fair market value. My point was if Faber is worth 8.5 mill after one good, not great, year, it artificially inflates market value. Fabers contract is a gamble not a sound hockey business decision. 1 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.