Leaf Rumours
- Thread starter Hoss
- Start date
hockeylover
Well-known member
Burke's Deadline Diary from when he was with Anaheim:
:sarcasm
:sarcasm
BeLeafer
Well-known member
Exactly.
A lot of hockey fans (especially in Leafsland) fail to understand the needs for player development. It does not end once they make it to the NHL. They still need to develop there and should never be blocked off for their potential slot even as rookies. Savard and Bozak would push Kadri to be stuck at the 3rd line level or Bozak by Kadri. That would totally fail their developmental needs.
hockeylover
Well-known member
Hmmm. Well, Savard's $1.25 million cheaper, he has confirmed chemistry with Kessel. He has a 7 year deal but for all intents and purposes, it's shorter than that - he's not going to be playing for 525K.
Gagne's a bit more expensive but his deal is expiring. He didn't JUST have a concussion but he does have a bit of injury history himself. Bozak and Kadri still get a major opportunity as our 1/2 centres if we bring him in. I think Philly is probably even more up against the wall to trade Gagne than Boston for Savard.
Man, I don't really know. I think Burke would want the winger, as he's made clear.
MindzEye
Wayward Ditch Pig
Probably Gagne...expiring contract and the potential for him to really go nutty in contract year. He has a history of popping 40+ goals in fully healthy seasons and should the planets align having Gagne on one line and Kessel on the other would give us legit 40+ goal threats on both.
With Giguere's expiring deal, it would give us 11.25 (plus any cap increase) to go fishing next summer to fill our top 6 needs, with a clearly picture of how Bozak & Kadri are working out as our top 2 centres.
Notable names who could be UFA's in 2011: Richards, Gagne, Thornton, Semin, M Koivu, Langenbrunner, Backes, Laich, Zherdev, with J Carter, Stamkos, Parise, Bailey, Okposo, Oshie, Voracek, Berglund, Giroux all potential RFA's to target with offer sheets or in trade.
j_15
New member
All things being equal, I'd prefer Savard. But given our current situation (with the development needs of Kadri and Bozak to consider), I'd rather take Gagne.
That said, I don't expect us to add either of them.
j_15
New member
I know you clarified it being saying that they could be UFAs/RFAs, but we can't look to/rely on future UFA crops to fill key spots in the top 6, most of those guys wont make it to market.
leafman101
Well-known member
As players, Savard is no doubt the more prolific offensive player, but I think the Leafs need a vet first line winger who is a sure bet for 30+ goals more than they need a playmaking center. Gagne's contract is also a better fit.
MindzEye
Wayward Ditch Pig
No, but some of them will, and we'll have a roster just about set with 13+ million in capspace and only 2-3 spots to spend it on.
Every year there are major names who make it to free agency, obviously some guys will get locked up, but at least a few names will make it. Most of those RFA's will make it to restricted free agency though, and Burke has never been shy about targeting them before.
Every year there are major names who make it to free agency, obviously some guys will get locked up, but at least a few names will make it. Most of those RFA's will make it to restricted free agency though, and Burke has never been shy about targeting them before.
LeafOfFaith
Well-known member
No contest.
Gagne all the way for all the reasons already stated for the last several days.
It doesn't get much clearer. Take a one year expiring commitment on a somewhat high risk- potentially very high reward player, have the room to re-sign him if it's a good fit, if not have tons of cap space next year with Giggy off the books too, and give Bozak and Kadri prime time minutes.
Or take a 33 year old on a retirement deal, with serious injuries, who plays a position we don't need to fill and would hamper our ability to fill the position we do need to fill, and who would clog up the middle for our youngsters.
There's just no doubt which way we should go.
Gagne all the way for all the reasons already stated for the last several days.
It doesn't get much clearer. Take a one year expiring commitment on a somewhat high risk- potentially very high reward player, have the room to re-sign him if it's a good fit, if not have tons of cap space next year with Giggy off the books too, and give Bozak and Kadri prime time minutes.
Or take a 33 year old on a retirement deal, with serious injuries, who plays a position we don't need to fill and would hamper our ability to fill the position we do need to fill, and who would clog up the middle for our youngsters.
There's just no doubt which way we should go.
number17
Mod Squad
In this day and age where cap space is king, tieing up $4M a year for the next 7 years in a position where we will, in all likelihood, be able to fill with cheap young talent is a bad move.
$4M doesn't sound too bad, until you realize it's $4M you pretty much can't move (NTC), and you can't force him to retire neither.
Of course, factor in his concussion, that just adds to the risk.
Gagne's contract is much better, and he's a winger which won't hinder the development of Bozak and Kadri, but help them instead.
$4M doesn't sound too bad, until you realize it's $4M you pretty much can't move (NTC), and you can't force him to retire neither.
Of course, factor in his concussion, that just adds to the risk.
Gagne's contract is much better, and he's a winger which won't hinder the development of Bozak and Kadri, but help them instead.
Does anyone seriously think that Savard is going to play past the 4th year of that contract? I just don't imagine him playing for $1.5mil and then $.550 for years 6 and 7... that contract is basically only 4 years, then he retires.
hockeylover
Well-known member
I can't believe it's July 10th and Kovalchuk still hasn't signed yet.
JackBurton
Well-known member
The top free agents are usually signed with 3-4 hours of July 1st. You'd thnk with so little big-name UFA's, he would have gone already somewhere. Guess it's a sign of the future.
number17
Mod Squad
Yeah, we'd think.
BUT, he holds all the cards on when he retires. It wouldn't be the first time a player refuses to shut it down and want to keep playing ... I mean, look at Mark Recchi.
Just because he regress into a 45-50 points player doesn't mean you can force him to retire. What do you do then?
Once he's your player then that's your problem. You don't want to be in that situation where we're talking every year whether we should buy him out or force him to retire ... it's a BAD situation
T
teeds
Guest
Reechi played quite well last year actually. And if you can keep playing, DO IT. Beats regular life. Trust me on that one.
number17
Mod Squad
Yeah but do you want Recchi for $4M a pop?
Pro athletes often keep playing until they're way over their peak. Problem with long term contracts, is even if players realize they are not half the player they once were, they don't have the option to tear up the contract and sign a lesser one. Either they retire, which they won't, or they will keep playing for the amount on your contract.
In Savard's case, that's $4M a pop. That's even when he regresses into a 40 point center, is a total defensive liability, and is injured for big chunk of the season ... until they decide to hang them up, he remains a $4M cap hit.
And that's just headache that whoever trades for him will inherit. I mean, I'm telling you now, all these long term contracts look like a great way to take advantage of the cap system loophole. Wait till the tail end of these contracts and the players just refuse to retire.
Pro athletes often keep playing until they're way over their peak. Problem with long term contracts, is even if players realize they are not half the player they once were, they don't have the option to tear up the contract and sign a lesser one. Either they retire, which they won't, or they will keep playing for the amount on your contract.
In Savard's case, that's $4M a pop. That's even when he regresses into a 40 point center, is a total defensive liability, and is injured for big chunk of the season ... until they decide to hang them up, he remains a $4M cap hit.
And that's just headache that whoever trades for him will inherit. I mean, I'm telling you now, all these long term contracts look like a great way to take advantage of the cap system loophole. Wait till the tail end of these contracts and the players just refuse to retire.