The Official NHL Offseason Thread

[smh810 0]

Richards will get a bigger offer than you'd think, I think ... certainly more than what the Lighting will be able to pay him, unless they're planning on having a handful of players making the minimum. Richards should get $4.5-5 million a year, and if the Bolts give him that, they'd have, what, a third of their payroll tied up in three guys? (I actually think either St Louis of Vinny will have to get moved in the next 2/3 years ... they've tied up too much money in two players, for 4 years at a minimum)

 

Fair point but it wont tie them up as much as you would think unless the cap shrinks next year. Those three would take up about 17-19 million in payroll which still leaves about 20 million to fill out the rest of the roster. Keep in mind too that there is going to be a BIG disparity between the top line players and the fourth line players. A lot of people not just on the Lightning but everywhere will be making in and around $450,000.

 

Grahame's a great back-up, but I don't think he's a #1 goalie ... yeah, he won a Calder Cup with Providence, but he's never played more than 30 games in a year. Let's see him play a full year as a #1 goalie before we start debating his ability to win a Cup. You yourself called Raycroft a "one year wonder" ... at least he has one year as a starter under his belt.

 

Fair enough.

 

91% was quite average in recent seasons. You needed around 92% just to crack the top 10. The fact that his GAA was substantially less than Khabibulin's is misleading also, given that he faced around 3 fewer shots a game. For some reason, the defense played better around Grahame.

 

His GAA was less but more importantly his save pct. was actually higher and he started a lot of those games in clumps, and even he faced 3 fewer shots a game he still had to make 5-7 quality saves per night. When he struggled was when his playing time was less consistent, the more work he got, the better he was. Its part of the reason why I think he can be effective as the No.1. Also if an average 91% save percentage leads to a Cup, I'll gladly settle for average. (Khabibulins percentage was .910)

 

Bah. In any event, 27 of Hossa's 34 career playoff points were on either game-tying or go-ahead goals, or goals that pulled the Sens to within a goal or put them up by 2.

 

Lets simplify this, how many 3rd period Game-tying or GW points?

[CanadianChris 0]

Bah. In any event, 27 of Hossa's 34 career playoff points were on either game-tying or go-ahead goals, or goals that pulled the Sens to within a goal or put them up by 2.

 

Lets simplify this, how many 3rd period Game-tying or GW points?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's irrelevant to the question, even if I cared enough to find it out and figure out if it even means anything.

[smh810 0]

hat's irrelevant to the question, even if I cared enough to find it out and figure out if it even means anything.

 

Because this:

 

In any event, 27 of Hossa's 34 career playoff points were on either game-tying or go-ahead goals, or goals that pulled the Sens to within a goal or put them up by 2.

 

says nothing. He scored points in the playoffs, wonderful. Did he score in crunch time that decided a game, specifically a game 6 or 7, the answer is no.

[CanadianChris 0]

Ah, the crutch of the logic-impaired...say something, then claim you meant something else when proven wrong. Nice.

[smh810 0]

You havent proven a damn thing Chris.

[CanadianChris 0]

You said:

 

How many of those points were when the Sens were way ahead or way behind I'd be willing to bet most of them.

 

I said:

 

In any event, 27 of Hossa's 34 career playoff points were on either game-tying or go-ahead goals, or goals that pulled the Sens to within a goal or put them up by 2.

 

I'm pretty sure most people would agree that 7 points scored when way ahead or way behind out of 34 total doesn't constitute "most of them," your efforts to cloud the issue notwithstanding.

[the max 0]

You havent proven a damn thing Chris.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How hasn't he?

 

You said

Yes Heatley has more upside but theyre both lazy defesively and I dont see Heatley as a playoff performer either

implying that Hossa isn't a playoff performer.

 

I said

Hossa IS a playoff performer, witnessed by his 34 points in 51 games.

 

You said

Hossa is a stat boy period. How many of those points were when the Sens were way ahead or way behind I'd be willing to bet most of them. He wilts just like the rest of that team in a pressure situation The only true clutch player for the Sens is Alffreddson and thats it.

 

Chris said

Bah. In any event, 27 of Hossa's 34 career playoff points were on either game-tying or go-ahead goals, or goals that pulled the Sens to within a goal or put them up by 2.

 

You said

Lets simplify this, how many 3rd period Game-tying or GW points?

 

Chris said

That's irrelevant to the question, even if I cared enough to find it out and figure out if it even means anything.

 

You said

He scored points in the playoffs, wonderful. Did he score in crunch time that decided a game, specifically a game 6 or 7, the answer is no.

 

I'd say Chris proved you wrong when he noted that 27 of his 34 playoff points were GTG, GAG or brought them within one or put them up two. You stated falsely that Hossa only scored when it didn't matter. However, when faced with the real numbers you're not admitting that you were wrong.

[bob_barron 0]

Hossa's points in October 03:

 

2nd Period

Ottawa 9:17, Chris Phillips 1 (Marian Hossa)

 

(Gives Ottawa 4-1 v. Montreal)

 

3rd Period

Ottawa 9:26, Radek Bonk 1 (power play) (Marian Hossa, Daniel Alfredsson)

 

(Ties game 2-2 v. Detroit)

 

2nd Period:

Ottawa 15:20, Zdeno Chara 1 (power play) (Radek Bonk, Marian Hossa)

 

(Gives Ottawa 3-1 lead v. LA)

 

2nd and 3rd period:

 

Ottawa 8:48, Marian Hossa 2 (Vaclav Varada, Radek Bonk)

Ottawa 9:22, Marian Hossa 3 (penalty shot)

 

(Gives Ottawa 3-0 and 4-1 leads)

 

1st Period

Ottawa 9:53, Radek Bonk 3 (power play) (Martin Havlat, Marian Hossa)

2nd Period

Ottawa 6:59, Marian Hossa 4 (Vaclav Varada, Wade Redden)

 

(Ties game 1-1, gives Ottawa 2-1 lead)

 

1st Period

Ottawa 15:29, Marian Hossa 5 (power play) (Radek Bonk)

 

(Ties game 1-1)

 

Okay, someone else can look up the rest of the year.

[the max 0]

Why does October matter, bob? We're talking about the playoffs. Playoffs?

[bob_barron 0]

Oh, I thought we were talking about Hossa in general.

 

Well the trade is lopsided since while Hossa has only taken out another man's eye, while Danny Heatley has killed someone.

 

That's all I got.

[CanadianChris 0]

Man, you ARE going to hell.

[nl5xsk1 0]

First of all, you can all go to hell for posting so much when I'm actually busy at work ... where are you guys when I'm bored and there's no one online?!?

 

Fair point but it wont tie them up as much as you would think unless the cap shrinks next year. Those three would take up about 17-19 million in payroll which still leaves about 20 million to fill out the rest of the roster. Keep in mind too that there is going to be a BIG disparity between the top line players and the fourth line players. A lot of people not just on the Lightning but everywhere will be making in and around $450,000.

smh, let's say that the cap stays at approximately $39 million. If the Lighting have $18 million (the middle of your $17-19 million range) then they have $21 million for the other 20 people on the team, which would take them to the max (and eliminate any chance of picking up a player at the deadline). Good luck fielding a team that has a majority of the players only earning an average of $1 million.

[the max 0]

Max's bold prediction concerning RFA Brad Richards:

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v97/maxp...27/richards.jpg

[smh810 0]

I'd say Chris proved you wrong when he noted that 27 of his 34 playoff points were GTG, GAG or brought them within one or put them up two. You stated falsely that Hossa only scored when it didn't matter. However, when faced with the real numbers you're not admitting that you were wrong.

 

I dug deeper into the stats and I'll concede one thing. Hossa had an excellent 03 postseason even though I dont quite remember that way. Although it seems to be the exception and not the rule for him it cant be overlooked. 04 on the other hand is deceptive yeah he scored 4 points but other than Game 1 he didnt do that much in the series. Game 4 was essentially a blow out even if the score didnt indicate it, and he was nowhere in game 6 or 7? So yeah he had one outstanding postseason but other than he hasnt done much.

[smh810 0]

Max's bold prediction concerning RFA Brad Richards:

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v97/maxp...27/richards.jpg

 

 

Schhyea and monkeys might fly out of my BUTT

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

Man, you ARE going to hell.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You don't actually think that, do you Barron?

 

I've beaten the dead horse that is defending Heatley enough.

[nl5xsk1 0]

I doubt that Barron really thinks the impact on another player's life (or death) is the way to figure out who wins a trade. It's still a humorous point nonetheless.

 

And I think that Max had the right state, but wrong team ... Richards will be a Ranger. They're going to need to pick up a player and are the type of team to overpay for a player that they really want. If he has a good season, they'll target him in the offseason and the Lightning won't be able to match it.

[smh810 0]

smh, let's say that the cap stays at approximately $39 million. If the Lighting have $18 million (the middle of your $17-19 million range) then they have $21 million for the other 20 people on the team, which would take them to the max (and eliminate any chance of picking up a player at the deadline). Good luck fielding a team that has a majority of the players only earning an average of $1 million.

 

Thats a lot more plausible than you make it sound cause the Lightning only have (and can only afford) 2 big money guys (Kubina, Boyle) besides those three. Plus again Richards is already making big money and is likely to give a home team discount. If he was a money grabber I'd worry about him leaving but as long as the cap stays at 39 he's sticking around. Also Feaster has said theyre only gonna carry 20 players not the usual 22 or 3 thats on most teams. I'd imagine most teams may do the same to save space.

 

And I think that Max had the right state, but wrong team ... Richards will be a Ranger. They're going to need to pick up a player and are the type of team to overpay for a player that they really want. If he has a good season, they'll target him in the offseason and the Lightning won't be able to match it.

 

Keep in mind Richards is restricted, not a UFA and I dont think even the Rangers would be willing to lose 5 draft pickas for a player like Richards.

[CanadianChris 0]

a) It won't be five first round picks, as Richards doesn't make enough money (extrapolating from the levels in the 2002-03 season, which I was able to find). It might be 3 picks.

 

b) Given the Rangers' abysmal drafting record recently, I wouldn't consider it a stretch that they might want to take a proven player over a few crapshoots.

 

c) Never underestimate the lunacy of Glen Sather.

[nl5xsk1 0]

smh, you and I will have to agree to disagree ...

 

I personally don't think having almost half your salary tied up in 3 players is a way to compete for a Cup. You'd be wicked reliant on unproven kids (or past-their-prime vets that are willing to play for a million or less) to eat plenty of ice time. Come playoff time, I wouldn't want to see a first or second year player guarding my blue line ... especially if Johnny Grahame is between the pipes.

 

If given the choice of picking up a player that could very easily slide onto their top line and help immediately, or save 3-5 draft picks that MIGHT help in a few years, I think the Rangers (and most teams) would pick the proven commodity.

[smh810 0]

) It won't be five first round picks, as Richards doesn't make enough money (extrapolating from the levels in the 2002-03 season, which I was able to find). It might be 3 picks.

 

b) Given the Rangers' abysmal drafting record recently, I wouldn't consider it a stretch that they might want to take a proven player over a few crapshoots.

 

c) Never underestimate the lunacy of Glen Sather.

 

I dont think you can use the 02-03 salary for Richards since he re-upped after that for the 03-04 season (but dont quote me on that). That being said while I dont believe Richards will go, your point about Sather is completely taken.

[CanadianChris 0]

To correct my first point above, given that it's the Rangers, they could very well send 5 first rounders the other way, as the dollar figure I was looking at was for the amount on the offer sheet, not the player's existing salary.

 

Still, I wouldn't put it past them at all.

[smh810 0]

I personally don't think having almost half your salary tied up in 3 players is a way to compete for a Cup. You'd be wicked reliant on unproven kids (or past-their-prime vets that are willing to play for a million or less) to eat plenty of ice time. Come playoff time, I wouldn't want to see a first or second year player guarding my blue line ... especially if Johnny Grahame is between the pipes.

 

The Bruins blue line... HAHAHAHA (kidding nl5 had to get that in there)

 

If given the choice of picking up a player that could very easily slide onto their top line and help immediately, or save 3-5 draft picks that MIGHT help in a few years, I think the Rangers (and most teams) would pick the proven commodity.

 

Logistically I would actually agree with that. However, after the Sakic and Gratton fiascos in 97 signing restricted free agents has been frowned upon in the league then again...its been 8 years.

[LaParkaMarka 0]

I personally don't think having almost half your salary tied up in 3 players is a way to compete for a Cup.  You'd be wicked reliant on unproven kids (or past-their-prime vets that are willing to play for a million or less) to eat plenty of ice time.  Come playoff time, I wouldn't want to see a first or second year player guarding my blue line ... especially if Johnny Grahame is between the pipes.

 

What teams don't have a young guy or an aging vet on the blue line? I can't think of any teams with 6 solid defenseman, except maybe Calgary. Philly?

[nl5xsk1 0]

smh, point taken on the B's blueline ... even I think it's one of the worst in the league. But the B's will most likely have only one rookie or second year player in the line-up each game. And they could easily play 6 deep without a single rookie or 2nd year guy (As much as I hate Gill, he's a decent second pairing d-man, Boynton's fine on the top pairing, put Leetch with Boynton & Slegr with Gill, and have Girard & Moran as the 3rd pairing. Not the best, but a line-up that I'd trust in the postseason).

 

LaParka, I agree, no one really goes 6 deep with great D ... my point is that if the Lightning put so much money into three players, or 5 if you add in Boyle & Kubina, then they'll be forced to have entire lines and D pairings of guys making no more than a million dollars. And I don't think you can win in tomorrow's NHL with so much money tied up in so few players.

[nl5xsk1 0]

I hate to post twice in a row, but it's been a few hours so it's all good ... right???

 

Max, you'll be thrilled to hear that the Thrashers contacted MOC and "He's a skilled player, and we woudl have had to give a very skilled player back."

 

I think your wished Heatley for Thornton trade was requested but denied.

[the max 0]

Fucking MOC. I'd make that trade given the chance, without a second thought.

[the max 0]

http://tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=134524

 

Louie gets his arbitration. He rejects a 5/25 contract, and gets a 1/3.2. He'll be playing elsewhere next year.

 

Another Max bold prediction:

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v97/maxpower27/luongo.jpg

[CanadianChris 0]

Another Max bold prediction:

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v97/maxpower27/luongo.jpg

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sadly, that's likely true, although I'd mark out if he went about five hours east on Hwy. 7 instead. Hang a right at Palladium Drive.

[the max 0]

I'm guessing that's Ottawa?