Stoll signs a 4 year/3.1 per year average package - Confirmed!

504Heater wrote:4 year 12ish million. Comes from a good source.

Not yet confirmed.

A lot of $$ for Stoll. Wew.

Now confirmed - and it's more than that.

[url=http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2008/09/04/stoll_kings_contract/

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2008/09/04/stoll_kings_contract/[/quote[/url]]
This was released days ago though, why so many days to make it final?

jamvan wrote:
This was released days ago though, why so many days to make it final?

Terms went up though. I heard it may pass yesterday, but I didn't hear it was released. He got an extra year and an extra 400K ish per year I believe. Good for him, he's giving up valuable UFA time, so...yeah, who'm I kidding, it's way too much.

504Heater wrote:

jamvan wrote:
This was released days ago though, why so many days to make it final?

Terms went up though. I heard it may pass yesterday, but I didn't hear it was released. He got an extra year and an extra 400K ish per year I believe. Good for him, he's giving up valuable UFA time, so...yeah, who'm I kidding, it's way too much.

If he was eating up our cap space like that I'd be pissed but for them... who cares.

Vermette is entering possibly his last season as an Ottawa Senator.
His signing, although great, spelled the end of his time in Ottawa.

There is no way we will have the cap space necessary to sign him once this contract is done. Either we get a Havlat-like return for him at the 2010 deadline or we let him walk as a UFA that summer (or try shipping him off before July 1st, 2010)
I expect the same treatment given to Foligno - purposely holding him back and keeping him off the PP with lesser talented forwards, in order to hold onto him past his entry level contract. As much as we all want Foligno to be on one of the top two lines, he would have to make it absolutely impossible for them to keep him off those lines for that to happen.
We'll see...but I'm guessing he is Kelly's new "Vermette."

504Heater wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:
According to Sportsnet.ca, the deal is 4 yrs, $14 mil, or $3.5 mil / yr:

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2008/09/04/stoll_kings_contract/

That's a little silly to be honest.

Thats a little destructive...Signings like this just continue to push the salaries higher and higher....terrible.

cash wrote:Vermette is entering possibly his last season as an Ottawa Senator.
His signing, although great, spelled the end of his time in Ottawa.

There is no way we will have the cap space necessary to sign him once this contract is done. Either we get a Havlat-like return for him at the 2010 deadline or we let him walk as a UFA that summer (or try shipping him off before July 1st, 2010)
I expect the same treatment given to Foligno - purposely holding him back and keeping him off the PP with lesser talented forwards, in order to hold onto him past his entry level contract. As much as we all want Foligno to be on one of the top two lines, he would have to make it absolutely impossible for them to keep him off those lines for that to happen.
We'll see...but I'm guessing he is Kelly's new "Vermette."

Thats a little destructive...Signings like this just continue to push the salaries higher and higher....terrible.

Jesus Christ, we better not. If he is indeed being moved, which based on his contract and age would seem very unlikely this year, he will be part of a package to land a premium player. We aren't getting fleeced again in a trade scenario like the one we had with Havlat.

Well, Murray is a better GM than Muckler, so I think we would get a better return and if he were indeed traded at the deadline (unlike Havlat) we would definitely get a nice return.
That being said, I don't think a deadline deal is likely in this scenario.
Ottawa should be a contender at that time and will likely be buyers, rather than sellers. Any team we trade Vermette to would likely be a contender and thus our competition.
He's more likely to walk as a UFA or have his rights traded for next to nothing...

So, really, this is likely Vermette's second last year as an Ottawa Senator.

Wow - that's harsh.

Business is hard, but hockey teams are in the business of winning now, as well as later. Given that, I'd question whether all of the above is entirely true.

There is no question that rookie players are often sent down again before they hit certain milestones, in order to protect their UFA eligibility. This was one of the big dilemmas that Pittsburgh had regarding Staal. However, even when they considered the implications of having so many players coming out of entry level contracts at once, they kept him up. They did so because they felt it gave them a better chance in the short term. And it almost worked; it certainly cemented Ray Shero's position in Pittsburgh. They are only now starting to deal with the effects of those decisions, a few years later.

Remember that for 97% of the hockey teams out there (Toronto is a bizarre situation that I won't get into), GMs may talk long-term, but they know that if there aren't short-term results, they may not be around for the long-term results. Murray knows that he is on thin ice right now; despite all the reassurances from Melnyk, last year's performance is in part due to Bryan's inaction. If there isn't a significant elevation in the performance on the ice, Melnyk will be sure to take action. This is the way he has always operated, within every business he has every owned, so there is no reason to believe he will treat the Senators differently.

Given this, I would suspect that Bryan has done to Vermette what he did with Kelly - he offered a verbal promise that the next contract will be a more favourable one, as long as he "takes one for the team" this time, to allow some flexibility for further transactions.

Murray is likely considering a similar gamble that Ray Shero made, but he is starting with a much stronger hand.

Murray is as shrewd as they come, let me tell you. There are very few people in hockey who know more about the game and its workings than this man. I'm just glad we have him on our side.

^ I have a blog written on Murray that I'm waiting to post...How would I do that?

Acrobat wrote:Wow - that's harsh.

Business is hard, but hockey teams are in the business of winning now, as well as later. Given that, I'd question whether all of the above is entirely true.

There is no question that rookie players are often sent down again before they hit certain milestones, in order to protect their UFA eligibility. This was one of the big dilemmas that Pittsburgh had regarding Staal. However, even when they considered the implications of having so many players coming out of entry level contracts at once, they kept him up. They did so because they felt it gave them a better chance in the short term. And it almost worked; it certainly cemented Ray Shero's position in Pittsburgh. They are only now starting to deal with the effects of those decisions, a few years later.

Remember that for 97% of the hockey teams out there (Toronto is a bizarre situation that I won't get into), GMs may talk long-term, but they know that if there aren't short-term results, they may not be around for the long-term results. Murray knows that he is on thin ice right now; despite all the reassurances from Melnyk, last year's performance is in part due to Bryan's inaction. If there isn't a significant elevation in the performance on the ice, Melnyk will be sure to take action. This is the way he has always operated, within every business he has every owned, so there is no reason to believe he will treat the Senators differently.

Given this, I would suspect that Bryan has done to Vermette what he did with Kelly - he offered a verbal promise that the next contract will be a more favourable one, as long as he "takes one for the team" this time, to allow some flexibility for further transactions.

Murray is likely considering a similar gamble that Ray Shero made, but he is starting with a much stronger hand.

I don't know see how the Vermette situation and the Staal situation are similar..?

cash wrote:^ I have a blog written on Murray that I'm waiting to post...How would I do that?

Acrobat wrote:Wow - that's harsh.

Business is hard, but hockey teams are in the business of winning now, as well as later. Given that, I'd question whether all of the above is entirely true.

There is no question that rookie players are often sent down again before they hit certain milestones, in order to protect their UFA eligibility. This was one of the big dilemmas that Pittsburgh had regarding Staal. However, even when they considered the implications of having so many players coming out of entry level contracts at once, they kept him up. They did so because they felt it gave them a better chance in the short term. And it almost worked; it certainly cemented Ray Shero's position in Pittsburgh. They are only now starting to deal with the effects of those decisions, a few years later.

Remember that for 97% of the hockey teams out there (Toronto is a bizarre situation that I won't get into), GMs may talk long-term, but they know that if there aren't short-term results, they may not be around for the long-term results. Murray knows that he is on thin ice right now; despite all the reassurances from Melnyk, last year's performance is in part due to Bryan's inaction. If there isn't a significant elevation in the performance on the ice, Melnyk will be sure to take action. This is the way he has always operated, within every business he has every owned, so there is no reason to believe he will treat the Senators differently.

Given this, I would suspect that Bryan has done to Vermette what he did with Kelly - he offered a verbal promise that the next contract will be a more favourable one, as long as he "takes one for the team" this time, to allow some flexibility for further transactions.

Murray is likely considering a similar gamble that Ray Shero made, but he is starting with a much stronger hand.

I don't know see how the Vermette situation and the Staal situation are similar..?

My point was that Shero made a choice that was beneficial for the team short-term, but potentially detrimental long-term. Murray may be making that same choice: in signing Vermette to a short deal, but at a lower salary, he may have (and rumors suggest that he has) made a promise to sign another larger and longer contract once this one ends (similar to what he did with Kelly). The smaller contract now gives Murray more room to maneuver, thus a greater chance of rebuilding a team that is likely to be successful. Later, however, one of three things will occur:

1. He will hold to the agreement, thus eating up more the cap space than he might have had he signed a longer agreement now;
2. He will renege on the agreement, thus losing Vermette, but also losing credibility for both himself and the organization;
3. He will trade Vermette, thus reducing his credibility, by having it appear as if this was a premeditated deception of an otherwise loyal player.

The difference is that Shero made the decision in the context of a team that was struggling to meet financial commitments, and thus not only was he in danger, but the entire team was at risk. In Murray's case, the team is secure, but he may not be. The core of the team is also much stronger in Ottawa than it was in Pittsburgh, although the incoming players were admittedly stronger in Pittsburgh.

ah I see your point.

I don't know about any verbal agreement (obviously) but I have a hard time believing we can afford Vermette at 5M (which is what his next contract will likely be)

cash wrote:Well, Murray is a better GM than Muckler, so I think we would get a better return and if he were indeed traded at the deadline (unlike Havlat) we would definitely get a nice return.
That being said, I don't think a deadline deal is likely in this scenario.
Ottawa should be a contender at that time and will likely be buyers, rather than sellers. Any team we trade Vermette to would likely be a contender and thus our competition.
He's more likely to walk as a UFA or have his rights traded for next to nothing...

So, really, this is likely Vermette's second last year as an Ottawa Senator.

I thought the same until recently. I think in Vermette gets some consistency in his game offensively Brian Murray will try to extend him. How many franked up things were happening this off-season. We didn't know where we were gonna be at after Mez and potentially Campbell. Now thet we have a little extra wiggle room next summer and after, you don't think Murray would entertain extending him?

I've been kinda wondering that all down. Does he think about extending him after this season if he continues to develop? And if so...how much per year.

This is all hypothetical of course.

cash wrote:ah I see your point.

I don't know about any verbal agreement (obviously) but I have a hard time believing we can afford Vermette at 5M (which is what his next contract will likely be)

Dammit, I didn't realize you had addressed that in that post.

5 mil? Not 4? I see a 4 X 6 being offered if all goes well. But I think you're right by being in the 5 mil ballpark. *sigh*...

504Heater wrote:

cash wrote:ah I see your point.

I don't know about any verbal agreement (obviously) but I have a hard time believing we can afford Vermette at 5M (which is what his next contract will likely be)

Dammit, I didn't realize you had addressed that in that post.

5 mil? Not 4? I see a 4 X 6 being offered if all goes well. But I think you're right by being in the 5 mil ballpark. *sigh*...

That's my point, though. Don't you think he could have signed Vermette now for long-term for less than 4-5? In effect, he did well for the team now, knowing that he may have handcuffed himself later.

It's a gamble - but Murray's one of the best, so let's see what plays out.

Acrobat wrote:

504Heater wrote:

cash wrote:ah I see your point.

I don't know about any verbal agreement (obviously) but I have a hard time believing we can afford Vermette at 5M (which is what his next contract will likely be)

Dammit, I didn't realize you had addressed that in that post.

5 mil? Not 4? I see a 4 X 6 being offered if all goes well. But I think you're right by being in the 5 mil ballpark. *sigh*...

That's my point, though. Don't you think he could have signed Vermette now for long-term for less than 4-5? In effect, he did well for the team now, knowing that he may have handcuffed himself later.

It's a gamble - but Murray's one of the best, so let's see what plays out.

Why would Murray make him UFA in the same summer as Volchenkov, Smith, Schubert, Donovan, Auld and the same summer as Foligno, Lee, Picard, Winchester, Bass, and Zubov turn RFA? I seriously doubt we'll be able to retain all twelve and I doubt Murray plans to..
I'm not saying its impossible, but it is certainly unlikely that Murray will re-sign a 5M Vermette and lose a 3M Foligno...Because thats the type of decision he will be forced into if he signs Vermette.

Acrobat wrote:

That's my point, though. Don't you think he could have signed Vermette now for long-term for less than 4-5? In effect, he did well for the team now, knowing that he may have handcuffed himself later.

It's a gamble - but Murray's one of the best, so let's see what plays out.

Personally, with Vermette, I would have liked to see a longer deal, and that inevitably would have been for a few more dollars.

I look at what Detroit did with Fillpula and Kronwall. Holland didn't wait for those two guys to put up the great numbers and then sign them long-term. Instead, he evaluated them, determined that they would continue to progress, and offered them longer deals worth a little more money than their history suggested they were worth at the time. Was Kronwall a $3 mil defenceman this time last year? No. But he is now, and that deal of his looks like a steal for the next 3 years. Is Fillpula a $3 mil centre right now? Hell no. But I'm quite sure he will be before the end of this year or the next, and once again Detroit will have another deal on their hands that looks like a fantastic steal for another 3-4 years.

If there's one knock on Murray, it's that he's too shrewd, too stingy with his young players. Signing a young guy on a long-term contract for slightly more than what he's worth at the time, a year or two before he hits his stride, can be a really great move. Vermette at $3-3.5 mil / 5 yrs wouldn't have looked quite as good as $2.76 mil does right now, but in a year or two we would have been laughing. We're gonig to find out in a few years, too, if the same could be said about Meszaros. I worry that, by saving ourselves a few $100,000s here and there in the short term, we're sacrificing our best youth in the long run. Better to have your most talented youth locked up for years rather than spend that money on a renter.

It's certainly a factor to contemplate as we assess Murray's skills as a GM.

rooneypoo wrote:

Acrobat wrote:

That's my point, though. Don't you think he could have signed Vermette now for long-term for less than 4-5? In effect, he did well for the team now, knowing that he may have handcuffed himself later.

It's a gamble - but Murray's one of the best, so let's see what plays out.

Personally, with Vermette, I would have liked to see a longer deal, and that inevitably would have been for a few more dollars.

I look at what Detroit did with Fillpula and Kronwall. Holland didn't wait for those two guys to put up the great numbers and then sign them long-term. Instead, he evaluated them, determined that they would continue to progress, and offered them longer deals worth a little more money than their history suggested they were worth at the time. Was Kronwall a $3 mil defenceman this time last year? No. But he is now, and that deal of his looks like a steal for the next 3 years. Is Fillpula a $3 mil centre right now? Hell no. But I'm quite sure he will be before the end of this year or the next, and once again Detroit will have another deal on their hands that looks like a fantastic steal for another 3-4 years.

If there's one knock on Murray, it's that he's too shrewd, too stingy with his young players. Signing a young guy on a long-term contract for slightly more than what he's worth at the time, a year or two before he hits his stride, can be a really great move. Vermette at $3-3.5 mil / 5 yrs wouldn't have looked quite as good as $2.76 mil does right now, but in a year or two we would have been laughing. We're gonig to find out in a few years, too, if the same could be said about Meszaros. I worry that, by saving ourselves a few $100,000s here and there in the short term, we're sacrificing our best youth in the long run. Better to have your most talented youth locked up for years rather than spend that money on a renter.

It's certainly a factor to contemplate as we assess Murray's skills as a GM.

In regards to the bolded sentence, I suppose it really depends on whow woul you rather keep: most talented or best players? Daigle was talented; so was Yashin and Havlat and Hossa. Redden, Chara and Meszaros as well. With the exception of Daigle that simply lost all interest in hockey (it seems) the others all have shown (whether explicitly or implicitly) that their choice was influenced more by money than other parameters.

Sure, I would have preferred to keep Meszaros as a committed young player, bent on improving himself and, by extension, his team. If he were that type of player I would pay him what he deserves and not worry too much about an extra $500K. But, clearly, he was not that kind of player.

I said in another post/thread that the reason Murray did not give him $4M was that he simply did not think he was worth that much. I'm actually surprised that he admitted offering him $3.5M, but that might have been because of some pressure (e.g. Melnyk?) But just like Kean-Luc Picard in First Contact, $3.5M may have been "This far and no further" for Murray.

One problem I see is with the details of the cap situation. First, I think they need to (really need to) drop the max percentage of the cap that a single player can earn, from 20% to 15%, if not lower. To compensate for that (in terms of real money earned by the players) raise the cap ceiling. And to offset that, drop the cap floor.

Sure, you would have a greater disparity between the haves and have-nots, but as the Rangers and Sabres of a few years ago showed us, a huge payroll does not guarantee success, just as a small one does not guarantee failure.

Dropping the floor would allow some teams with a legitimate need to control their spending, to be able to get players who are really worth their cap hit (as opposed to trading aging veterans whose cap hit has more to do with front-end-loading than it does with their current performance). The teams that used to overspend are still overspending (look at the payroll, not the cap hit). Certainly not as much as before. but it's still there.

By widening that floor-to-ceiling gap they could drop the salary max as a percentage of total cap, allowing a team to hold on to more than just 2-3 superstars.