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

Leaf Rumours

i don't get the contract extension part either.

But I think in Nonis and BeLeafer's defense, Nonis said at the interview, very clearly, that the plan all along was to bring Kipper in as the #3 guy.

He went as far as saying Kipper makes sense because "I don't have to move my 2 goalies. They can stay here."

Further, when it comes to acquiring Luongo, Dreger repeated Gillis made repeated attempts to make the trade happen, even dropping the demand to Scrivens + B prospect, and Nonis didn't bite.

Part of it is he doesn't want to take Luongo's contract, that's for sure (or else he's an idiot)

But part of it also speaks volume about how much confidence he has in Reimer and Scrivens.

So anyone who says inquiring about Kipper was a slap in the face of Reimer, no, that wasn't the case at all. Nonis clearly explains that. And he said he also pulled Reimer aside before the morning skate, to explain to him he is their man, and the whole Kipper thing is only to find him a mentor in case things go south in the playoff.

You can argue $5M of cap space for a #3 guy is stupid (but we have the cap space this year, why waste it?) ... you can argue the extension part is stupid (and I think it is, but I still can't figure out what thats really about) ... but make no mistake, in Nonis' assessment Reimer > Scrivens >> Kipper.

On another note, Nonis talked about O'Bryne and says he brings the experience and also physicality which he thinks they might need in some playoff series (say, vs. the Bruins) but he also makes it clear it is up to the coach which dman to play on any given night, and even said given the blueline he has he doesn't see O'Bryne as a regular on any given night.

Thus, like I said, he's a depth guy ... #7 or #8.
 
Fine, so even though he says several times that the deal would have allowed him to keep both goalies, you focus on that one statement and assume it makes the other statements void?
 
number17 said:
i don't get the contract extension part either.

But I think in Nonis and BeLeafer's defense, Nonis said at the interview, very clearly, that the plan all along was to bring Kipper in as the #3 guy.

He went as far as saying Kipper makes sense because "I don't have to move my 2 goalies. They can stay here."

Further, when it comes to acquiring Luongo, Dreger repeated Gillis made repeated attempts to make the trade happen, even dropping the demand to Scrivens + B prospect, and Nonis didn't bite.

Part of it is he doesn't want to take Luongo's contract, that's for sure (or else he's an idiot)

But part of it also speaks volume about how much confidence he has in Reimer and Scrivens.

So anyone who says inquiring about Kipper was a slap in the face of Reimer, no, that wasn't the case at all. Nonis clearly explains that. And he said he also pulled Reimer aside before the morning skate, to explain to him he is their man, and the whole Kipper thing is only to find him a mentor in case things go south in the playoff.

You can argue $5M of cap space for a #3 guy is stupid (but we have the cap space this year, why waste it?) ... you can argue the extension part is stupid (and I think it is, but I still can't figure out what thats really about) ... but make no mistake, in Nonis' assessment Reimer > Scrivens >> Kipper.

On another note, Nonis talked about O'Bryne and says he brings the experience and also physicality which he thinks they might need in some playoff series (say, vs. the Bruins) but he also makes it clear it is up to the coach which dman to play on any given night, and even said given the blueline he has he doesn't see O'Bryne as a regular on any given night.

Thus, like I said, he's a depth guy ... #7 or #8.
Click to expand...

Can you think of a way that works in your head (that actually makes sense!!!) next year? We just carry three goalies all year? Genuinely asking. I can't.
 
BeLeafer said:
Fine, so even though he says several times that the deal would have allowed him to keep both goalies, you focus on that one statement and assume it makes the other statements void?
Click to expand...

I've explained this over and over - I can't think of a way having Kiprusoff here next year and extended actually allows for this.
 
number17 said:
i don't get the contract extension part either.

But I think in Nonis and BeLeafer's defense, Nonis said at the interview, very clearly, that the plan all along was to bring Kipper in as the #3 guy.
Click to expand...


Personally, I'm not sure what else he could have said.......does he admit his plan was to bring in Kipper to replace Scrivens, after he failed to acquire him? Maybe he would, but I can't really see the value in admitting that after the fact, as it could only work to damage Scrivens confidence.


....but who knows, maybe he was 100% honest with that comment. It would just make the extension talk all the more bizarre though.
 
Name aside, is there any reason you can't give a guy a multiyear contract to play in the AHL?

Maybe, if he's being shifty, the plan was to have Scrivens and Kiprusoff duke it out for the backup next year? Hardly a moment of doom.

Whatever the case, we know Kiprusoff was open to the discussion, but he decided against it. That's probably because he wasn't guaranteed an NHL job.
 
Seems pretty clear to me that he wanted to bring in Kipper, trade Scrivens for Luongo, and send Reimer to Buffalo for Ryan Miller.
 
well, I think we're all agreed that Kipper's reluctance is the only thing to save our inexperienced GM from making one of the worst moves of all time.

so let's move on.
 
Giving Kipper a chance to beat out Ben Scrivens for the backup with no guarantee of an NHL job is hardly the worst thing ever. In fact, you could well argue it's a smart move. If Scrivens can't handle the challenge from a washed up guy like that, he can't be so good, eh. And it would be great to have a vet with Reimer. The team lacks this. But it would all depend on how it plays out.

We know for sure that this GM does not tolerate substandard performance from guys with names or contracts.
 
I feel like these "Maybe..." scenarios are just really, really reaching. They seem pretty far fetched. "Maybe he was going to trade assets for him and sign him to an extension to play in the AHL", "Maybe he didn't offer the extension, but he just told us Kipper didn't want one!"...

I don't WANT to think any less of our new GM and I certainly don't want him fired or anything like that. I just don't get what he was thinking with this one. And none of these explanations really make sense to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top