• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

Leaf Rumours

Riberio is the definition of a fairy.

But he's a fairy who can put up 70+ points.

If we can dump one of our bad contracts for him, there could be a fit. But I wouldn't deal anything of value for him.
 
I'm pretty sure his NMC gets weaker and weaker each year (full in 10-11, 5 teams in 11-12, 10 teams in 12-13, all of the east in 13-14) till it completely disappears in the 5th year.

Its really not a favourable contract for Savard if he planned on playing past year 4. Make no money and can be sent wherever the team wants. I really can't imagine he plans on still playing.
 
People are really fooling themselves if they think Savard planned to play those last two years at 38/39 for 525K, seriously.
 
zeke said:
it's not really 7 years.

it's likely 4-5 years, with him either retiring or bought out for very cheap if need be.
Click to expand...

Even so, if Savard regresses to 50-60 point status by year two or three, or the injuries start to pile up big time and prevent him from getting in more or less a full season, that's $4M down the drain in an immovable contract.

Because no one is gonna pay him $7M in actual cash to sit on the sidelines or underperform. And again, we should be no different right now UNLESS we shed Grabs or Finger in the deal, thereby negate the cap effect for the first two years, and just hope Savard holds up in the middle years.

It just reeks of Jason Blake to me, and worse, Jason Blake with injuries. It may well work out well depending on what we give up, but I just can't imagine that Burke would invest so much money in another stereotypically un-Burkeian smallish player, and give up any assets of import to do it.

I just can't picture it happening. Especially not when Burke has grown accustomed to the sweet nectar of ripping off Calgary and Anaheim last year and being handed the keys to the city. And especially not when his Kessel deal is STILL being questioned far and wide.
 
It's really like signing Savard at 5 years and $4 million cap hit. I don't believe that we're in a position to be turning down PPG centers at that hit as far as I'm concerned, if the trade is a dump as they say.
 
$4 mil for 50-60 points as a worst case scenario sounds fine with me.

Considering that Marc Savard has been more productive since the lockout than any leaf forward we've had since Gilmour, of course, means that the best case scenario is definitely worth the risk to me.
 
that's $4M down the drain in an immovable contract.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you'll just ignore me and say this again in a couple pages, but that contract is VERY moveable after year 4. Any team that needs to reach the cap ceiling but is limited by payroll can take 4 million in cap space and only 1.5 in salary, and .525 the two years after that which he'll likely retire for anyway.

It is also a cheap buyout as pointed out 537908572890672 times already.
 
That said, I would be fully on board if somehow the trade boiled down to Finger, Blacker, Stefanovich for Savard, and then we ship off Grabo for a 2nd rounder from someone.

That'd be like $7M out in two deals, $4M of a cap hit in, and a 2nd rounder added to the coffers. The only real risk then would be years 3-5 of Savard's deal, which I can live with if the other things happen.
 
LeafOfFaith said:
That said, I would be fully on board if somehow the trade boiled down to Finger, Blacker, Stefanovich for Savard, and then we ship off Grabo for a 2nd rounder from someone.

That'd be like $7M out in two deals, $4M of a cap hit in, and a 2nd rounder added to the coffers. The only real risk then would be years 3-5 of Savard's deal, which I can live with if the other things happen.
Click to expand...
How can one poster be so unbelievably clueless about the Savard situation?
 
LeafOfFaith said:
That said, I would be fully on board if somehow the trade boiled down to Finger, Blacker, Stefanovich for Savard, and then we ship off Grabo for a 2nd rounder from someone.

That'd be like $7M out in two deals, $4M of a cap hit in, and a 2nd rounder added to the coffers. The only real risk then would be years 3-5 of Savard's deal, which I can live with if the other things happen.
Click to expand...

Boston would not be comfortable with any of that.
 
That said, I would be fully on board if somehow the trade boiled down to Finger, Blacker, Stefanovich for Savard, and then we ship off Grabo for a 2nd rounder from someone.

That'd be like $7M out in two deals, $4M of a cap hit in, and a 2nd rounder added to the coffers. The only real risk then would be years 3-5 of Savard's deal, which I can live with if the other things happen.
Click to expand...

... wtf.
 
hockeylover said:
I'm sure you'll just ignore me and say this again in a couple pages, but that contract is VERY moveable after year 4. Any team that needs to reach the cap ceiling but is limited by payroll can take 4 million in cap space and only 1.5 in salary, and .525 the two years after that which he'll likely retire for anyway.

It is also a cheap buyout as pointed out 537908572890672 times already.
Click to expand...

Pay more attention before you break out the lofty attitude.

I was referring to the first few years of the deal, saying that if he turns into a 50 point forward or is injured half the time, that's an immovable contract from the get-go. And the only time we will be able to get rid of it, and only maybe then, is year 5 of the deal.
 
If a 50-60 point guy was entering a UFA status 4M would be the right amount., and this is the worst case scenerio for Savard.

I dont get some of you people
 
LeafOfFaith said:
Even so, if Savard regresses to 50-60 point status by year two or three, or the injuries start to pile up big time and prevent him from getting in more or less a full season, that's $4M down the drain in an immovable contract.
Click to expand...

4M with a 60 mill cap is nothing.

50-60 points @ 4 mill is still good value -- and that's the WORST case scenario.
 
If he regresses to a 50-60 point player it's a market value deal.....if he gets injured, he goes on LTIR and his cap space is free'd up.

If he reverts to form.....he's on one of the best non-rookie contracts in the entire league.

Since the lockout....


1) S.Crosby (23, $8.7):371gms, 183gls, 506pts(82gms, 41gls, 112pts)
2) J.Thornton ( $7.2):406gms, 116gls, 510pts(82gms, 23gls, 103pts)
3) E.Malkin ($8.7):309gms, 143gls, 381pts(82gms, 38gls, 101pts)
4) J.Spezza ($7.0):353gms, 142gls, 399pts(82gms, 33gls, 93pts)
5) P.Datsyuk ($6.7):397gms, 145gls, 438pts(82gms, 30gls, 91pts)
6) M.Savard ($4.0):361gms, 100gls, 392pts(82gms, 23gls, 89pts)
7) H.Zetterberg ($6.1):366gms, 169gls, 388pts(82gms, 38gls, 87pts)
8) N.Backstrom ($6.7):246gms, 69gls, 258pts(82gms, 23gls, 86pts)
9) H.Sedin (30, $6.1): 410gms, 94gls, 426pts (82gms, 19gls, 85pts)
10) V.Lecavalier ($7.7):402gms, 180gls, 412pts(82gms, 37gls, 84pts)


*hat tip to zeke for the list.
 
Last edited:
I was referring to the first few years of the deal, saying that if he turns into a 50 point forward or is injured half the time, that's an immovable contract from the get-go. And the only time we will be able to get rid of it, and only maybe then, is year 5 of the deal.
Click to expand...

Again, there's nothing overly wrong with a 50 point forward for 4 million. Everything we know about Savard suggests he'll be better than that for the first few years though.
 
corksens said:
How can one poster be so unbelievably clueless about the Savard situation?
Click to expand...

Feeling's mutual then, because I think you and some others are delirious when it comes to this subject.

Boston is currently DYING to get rid of Savard. He's up there in years, his body is breaking down, he just came off a terrible season and an even worse playoffs, they are stacked at forward positions in other big money deals, and they're about to START paying him $7M per year on his new SEVEN year deal.

Oh, and he has a NTC which he'll only waive for one team that realistically will take him.

How clueless can you and the rest of those like you be to think that they have any ****ing leverage or right to demand anything at all???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top