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

No Excuses No Limits! The mother fucking goddamn season thread

but is it actually a magic "get out of caphit" thing?

then why not do it with every single contract?
 
zeke said:
but is it actually a magic "get out of caphit" thing?

then why not do it with every single contract?
Click to expand...
I think they’re gonna try but it’s a bad deal for players. Likely need to balance the deferral with hefty bonuses.

And the leafs were dumb for not doing this with all of the overpaid 4.
 
so we're now locked in to our current top-4 D for the next 4+ years eh?

they're all on the wrong side of 30.
none of them have every won anything of note.
Tanev has a long injury history.
OEL has a long sucking history (although he's been great for us so far, admittedly).

and we're paying Timmy what, $3 mill to fight for a bottom pair D spot?

I just don't see this top-4 being good enough to win much. And we're locking in a bunch of over 30 guys on the backend for all the remaining prime years of our core.

I don't dislike the McCabe deal in isolation, but I'm pretty displeased with what it locks us into for the next few years...
 
mbow30 said:
I think they’re gonna try but it’s a bad deal for players. Likely need to balance the deferral with hefty bonuses.

And the leafs were dumb for not doing this with all of the overpaid 4.
Click to expand...

I mean sure there's a balance there - deferred money is worth less than current money, but that's all easily calculable and doesn't have to be a bad deal for the players - it should be a way of giving players more money than some other teams would give them at that same caphit.

And yeah obviously the leafs are better able to give most of the contract in signing bonuses anyways.
 
Players need to agree to it and its bad for them, and it saves minimal money on each contract without a super long deferral. But any saving is good.
 
And in terms of the big Core shakeup with OEL, Tanev and McCabe locked up for the next 4 years, they should trade Mo.

He's going to age the worst of the 4, and cost the most, and is the worst.
 
But then their d will be even less competent offensively so they'll need to replace what he brings. At the very least grab a sheltered third pair possession driving pp specialist type.
 
Wayward DP said:
so we're now locked in to our current top-4 D for the next 4+ years eh?

they're all on the wrong side of 30.
none of them have every won anything of note.
Tanev has a long injury history.
OEL has a long sucking history (although he's been great for us so far, admittedly).

and we're paying Timmy what, $3 mill to fight for a bottom pair D spot?

I just don't see this top-4 being good enough to win much. And we're locking in a bunch of over 30 guys on the backend for all the remaining prime years of our core.

I don't dislike the McCabe deal in isolation, but I'm pretty displeased with what it locks us into for the next few years...
Click to expand...

We could literally add another $6m D right now by moving Lilly/Kampf/Jarnkrok, and then the cap is only going up and up, so there's no being locked in.

And Tanev's injury history is well overblown.

Last 5yrs (plus the start of this year):

Tanev: 400gms of 428 (94%)
OEL: 367gms of 414 (89%)
Rielly: 367gms of 418 (88%)
McCabe: 330gms of 398 (83%)
 
zeke said:
We could literally add another $6m D right now by moving Lilly/Kampf/Jarnkrok, and then the cap is only going up and up, so there's no being locked in.

And Tanev's injury history is well overblown.

Last 5yrs (plus the start of this year):

Tanev: 400gms of 428 (94%)
OEL: 367gms of 414 (89%)
Rielly: 367gms of 418 (88%)
McCabe: 330gms of 398 (83%)
Click to expand...
I just don't think this d-corps is good enough to win anything this year. but we're locked into it for the next four, and they're all going to decline.

so sure, we can move one of our $4+ million D-men to the bottom pair, to join $3m Timmy there. would still be poor asset management.

just wished we'd aim a little higher.
 
zeke said:
We could literally add another $6m D right now by moving Lilly/Kampf/Jarnkrok, and then the cap is only going up and up, so there's no being locked in.

And Tanev's injury history is well overblown.

Last 5yrs (plus the start of this year):

Tanev: 400gms of 428 (94%)
OEL: 367gms of 414 (89%)
Rielly: 367gms of 418 (88%)
McCabe: 330gms of 398 (83%)
Click to expand...
and how much you wanna bet that all of them play in a lower percentage of games over the next 4-5 years?
 
leafman101 said:
Well its not really a cup calibre defense, and you just locked into #2,3 and 4 so whats the other option?
Click to expand...
You could always trade any of the other guys too. It’s not like having a contract locks them in. If anything, it locks in their value. They could turn around and trade McCabe next year if some good opportunity comes along and they want to make room. Don’t have that option if he walks as a UFA.
 
But overall, I’m also feeling deflated. It’s the right move to keep the player and the asset, but overall we just don’t look good enough, and it’s unclear how we get better. Tre is more of a trade only out of desperation guy, like he’s so afraid of taking any kind of risk, that he works only out of the draft and ufa signings. He’d never even think about trading Marner, that’s why I told you guys all to calm down in the offseason.

One thing I liked about Dubas is that he was always looking to add bigger names by trade. I knew he’d get EK in Pittsburgh. That was so in character. Tre just hordes his chips and never splits or doubles down.
 
We should all probably reserve judgment on this season though. We go as Matty goes, and he hasn’t been going yet. The other guys are pretty much doing what we expect of them. Maybe when Matty wakes up, everything comes together, like it looked like it was before these last three disaster games.
 
Rielly

25: 5v5 18:41 (-2.9dzs%), 51.4xgf% (-0.2rel), 0.62p1/60, 1.16p/60, 2.2sh%, 8.9oish% ---> 5v4 2:25, 1.69p1/60, 3.94p/60, 0.0sh%, 15.4oish%
26: 5v5 19:05 (-3.3dzs%), 55.1xgf% (-0.6rel), 0.40p1/60, 1.03p/60, 4.2sh%, 9.7oish% ---> 5v4 2:46, 1.96p1/60, 3.93p/60, 4.6sh%, 12.5oish%
27: 5v5 18:03 (-0.4dzs%), 53.4xgf% (-2.8rel), 0.97p1/60, 1.46p/60, 4.1sh%, 10.4oish% --> 5v4 2:51, 2.40p1/60, 5.61p/60, 6.9sh%, 16.1oish%
28: 5v5 16:42 (-0.8dzs%), 51.9xgf% (-2.6rel), 0.78p1/60, 1.05p/60, 3.1sh%, 8.0oish% ---> 5v4 3:00, 2.81p1/60, 5.32p/60, 5.6sh%, 18.4oish%
29: 5v5 19:01 (-3.5dzs%), 50.5xgf% (-2.1rel), 0.88p1/60, 1.31p/60, 2.9sh%, 10.7oish% --> 5v4 2:36, 3.30p1/60, 5.94p/60, 5.0sh%, 16.3oish%
30: 5v5 17:28 (-6.6dzs%), 51.4xgf% (+2.0rel), 1.14p1/60, 1.14p/60, 7.7sh%, 8.2oish% --> 5v4 2:34, 0.00p1/60, 0.00p/60, 0.0sh%, 00.0oish%
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top