Meszaros and Murray at a stand still

jamvan wrote:

Mosky wrote:

jamvan wrote:

Mosky wrote:But the way things ended last year i really just feel like it NEEDS to be done.. almost no way around it the way Heater produced after the playoffs in that tournament. I would like to see it for the beginning and see how it goes.. and then maybe for the playoff run/playoffs pair them all back up and watch us rape.

Nothing went right for this team come playoffs and I wouldn't hold my breath about those two getting split up. Having a second liner making $7 million is a tough pill too swallow.

But that's the the thing, its not a second liner making $7 mil. It's a first line center playing on the second line because we don't have the secondary scoring that we need. If we had more in the back theres no way in hell i would want to split up that line. The best line in history in my mind lol, they can do anything together but for development and for hopefully a high point tally, we could put him on the second line. Just from my point of view i don't see it as a waste of money if he gets moved down to the second line.

I still don't say we have no secondary scoring. How can a team that places top 5 in goals every year not have secondary scoring? I would say a team like Florida has no secondary scoring.

I just don't think there's a need to break the big three up. Maybe at times, but not for the long haul.

Agreed. In fact, I seem to recall hearing an interview with Spezza I think a while back on the Team 1200 and even he said that Secondary scoring wasn't an issue, it was the BURN-OUT of the TOP line that was an issue. When the top line was scoring, the 2nd and 3rd lines MAY add a goal or two and everything would be fine. But, when Alfie, Heater and Spezza were spent, all of a sudden, we had to rely on our 2nd, 3rd and 4th lines and NO ONE should be expected to carry the load our big guns do, and so to some, it looked like we had no secondary scoring IMHO.

Mosky wrote:I guess in me saying that we have no secondary scoring is a little over the top, but in a sense i always felt that 75% of our scoring was the first line, and IMO, i think that's a little high for only one line, and if the percentage dropped to 60% for the first line, 30% for the second line and the others the rest.. then it might add up to even higher scoring totals, then why not?

Even if we have lower scoring totals - lets say we drop from 1st in the NHL to 10th (from 258 to 240) - I would prefer having two capable scoring lines, which strike on an equally regular basis, than 1 line which has to handle scoring all the key goals.
Imo the only time the CASH line should be reunited is on powerplays and within the last three (no sooner) minutes of a game we are trailing in.

jamvan wrote:

Mosky wrote:But the way things ended last year i really just feel like it NEEDS to be done.. almost no way around it the way Heater produced after the playoffs in that tournament. I would like to see it for the beginning and see how it goes.. and then maybe for the playoff run/playoffs pair them all back up and watch us rape.

Nothing went right for this team come playoffs and I wouldn't hold my breath about those two getting split up. Having a second liner making $7 million is a tough pill too swallow.

I'd liken it more to the way Pit looked last year - Crosby and Malkin on lines 1 and 2. Or 1A and 1B if you prefer.

If Heater and Alfie could lead one line, with a centre like perhaps Fisher to offload Alfie, and Spezza could be put between Foligno and (?mystery T6F), then there may be potential.

Foligno has the potential to be another Fisher (almost), so digging in the corners wouldn't be an issue, and he can get in front to get the "garbage". The other two can work their magic. The other line should gel as well, leaving us with two potent lines, and the ability to reunite/rejuggle if required without losing much.

The wierd part is that you would then have Fisher centering a line which looks like it is in front of Spezza!

Here's a good read on the situation: http://ottawasun.ca/Sports/Senators/2008/08/24/6554481-sun.html

jamvan wrote:Here's a good read on the situation: http://ottawasun.ca/Sports/Senators/2008/08/24/6554481-sun.html

I wonder where Garrioch is getting those potential contract numbers from. $3.5 mil / yr is at about the high end of what I thought we'd be offering -- something like Matt Carle money, who is a good comparable. If Murray has already offered that amount and been turned down, then wow. I mean, I've been pretty vocal skeptic of the possibility of signing Mesz for anything under $3 mil / yr -- but I'm not prepared to sign him for Weber money ($4.5 mil / yr).

rooneypoo wrote:

jamvan wrote:Here's a good read on the situation: http://ottawasun.ca/Sports/Senators/2008/08/24/6554481-sun.html

I wonder where Garrioch is getting those potential contract numbers from. $3.5 mil / yr is at about the high end of what I thought we'd be offering -- something like Matt Carle money, who is a good comparable. If Murray has already offered that amount and been turned down, then wow. I mean, I've been pretty vocal skeptic of the possibility of signing Mesz for anything under $3 mil / yr -- but I'm not prepared to sign him for Weber money ($4.5 mil / yr).

Where DID he get those cap numbers from? Garrioch suggests, despite evidence to the contrary, that we are in fact sitting on 8.3 million dollars in cap space.

Well, this is odd. The numbers at nhlscap.com and the ones at nhlnumbers.com differ by approximately 2.3 million dollars. Very weird.

Sign for 2.75 Meszaros for 2 years and just shut your yap already about wanting Shea Weber money.

PKC wrote:

Where DID he get those cap numbers from? Garrioch suggests, despite evidence to the contrary, that we are in fact sitting on 8.3 million dollars in cap space.

Well, this is odd. The numbers at nhlscap.com and the ones at nhlnumbers.com differ by approximately 2.3 million dollars. Very weird.

Sign for 2.75 Meszaros for 2 years and just shut your yap already about wanting Shea Weber money.

Yea, now that you mention it, his numbers there are all screwed up. First, the cap this year is $56.7 mil, not $56.3 mil as he writes. Second, he appears to be getting all his numbers from NHLnumbers.com, which is unfortunate because that site doesn't add in a few salaries (Lee, Nycholat, Winchester -- they add up to the $2.3 mil dollar discrepancy) and so doesn't provide as accurate a picture as NHLSCAP.com.

Of course, if you've been reading over at KLee's and here for a while, you'll know that I've drawn attention to this before and am on something of a personal crusade to encourage people to turn to the latter source for their cap info. :D

Anyway, as I've been arguing for months, I wouldn't be surprised at all if we ended up paying Mesz $3+ mil. Some people around here having been throwing around the $2.5 mil / yr number like it's a settled thing, but when I look at a guy like Matt Carle and see what he signed for, I don't see how we can pay Mesz less. Murray is a great GM, tho', and I'm optimistic that, if there's anyone who can shave off a few dollars, it'll be him -- but I wouldn't be at all surprised if we ended up paying Mesz somewhere between $3-3.5 mil / yr. As long as the term is longer (say, 3-4 years, as opposed to 1-2 years), I think I could live with that.

rooneypoo wrote:

PKC wrote:

Where DID he get those cap numbers from? Garrioch suggests, despite evidence to the contrary, that we are in fact sitting on 8.3 million dollars in cap space.

Well, this is odd. The numbers at nhlscap.com and the ones at nhlnumbers.com differ by approximately 2.3 million dollars. Very weird.

Sign for 2.75 Meszaros for 2 years and just shut your yap already about wanting Shea Weber money.

Yea, now that you mention it, his numbers there are all screwed up. First, the cap this year is $56.7 mil, not $56.3 mil as he writes. Second, he appears to be getting all his numbers from NHLnumbers.com, which is unfortunate because that site doesn't add in a few salaries (Lee, Nycholat, Winchester -- they add up to the $2.3 mil dollar discrepancy) and so doesn't provide as accurate a picture as NHLSCAP.com.

Of course, if you've been reading over at KLee's and here for a while, you'll know that I've drawn attention to this before and am on something of a personal crusade to encourage people to turn to the latter source for their cap info. :D

Anyway, as I've been arguing for months, I wouldn't be surprised at all if we ended up paying Mesz $3+ mil. Some people around here having been throwing around the $2.5 mil / yr number like it's a settled thing, but when I look at a guy like Matt Carle and see what he signed for, I don't see how we can pay Mesz less. Murray is a great GM, tho', and I'm optimistic that, if there's anyone who can shave off a few dollars, it'll be him -- but I wouldn't be at all surprised if we ended up paying Mesz somewhere between $3-3.5 mil / yr. As long as the term is longer (say, 3-4 years, as opposed to 1-2 years), I think I could live with that.

The only way Matt Carle's contract is a comparable is from a player's point of view. I'd comfortably say that 8/10 of GMs in the NHL would consider Matt Carle's contract to be a 'bad' contract. Not to the point of a Wade Ringo or Scott Gomez type overpaid, but what I would consider detrimental to the overall cap situation.

But I'm not a professional evaluator of talent, so I really wouldn't know what type of value some GMs might place on Carle. But in my opinion, one half decent season of hockey does not earn a contract like that, and for Meszaros to use that as a comparable I think is ridiculous from the other side of the coin.

However, with all that said, if we can lock him up for 3 million per season for the next 3 or 4 years, I'd be fairly happy with the way things turned out.