GAME DAY: Ottawa Senators @ Winnipeg Jets :: 3:00pm ET :: Sat. Mar. 8th, 2014

NEELY wrote:Either way no rookie or prospect has come in and been given Michalek's spot and he's having an off year.  Laying it all on those same prospects is not only a risk it's a stupid and easily avoidable risk.  

FYP

The coach had a bit to do with this, too.  Michalek struggled mightily and no-one was *given* the chance to take his place.

I don't know what to think about Michalek. I don't really want him back...but if this hemsky deal makes him play like that, then who knows. Depends what he wants. 2.5 for one year is about all I'd do.

SpezDispenser wrote:I don't know what to think about Michalek.  I don't really want him back...but if this hemsky deal makes him play like that, then who knows.  Depends what he wants.   2.5 for one year is about all I'd do.

then I think he decides to walk. even with his injury history i'm sure he can get more then that on the open market.

Flo The Action wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:I don't know what to think about Michalek.  I don't really want him back...but if this hemsky deal makes him play like that, then who knows.  Depends what he wants.   2.5 for one year is about all I'd do.

then I think he decides to walk. even with his injury history i'm sure he can get more then that on the open market.

So be it, too much risk to pay him more.

I would do two years 7.5 mill (3.75 per) but I've been a huge fan of his since his rookie season.

Me too, but this is not the same Milan Michalek we liked.

It's funny people say that there are prospects ready to take Michalek's spot, most notably Stone... but Stone is never healthy either and he's 21 so it's the same knock without any real tangible proof he's even good enough to be in that spot.  Getting rid of Michalek or Hemsky at this point is a mistake short of one or both asking for a stupid amount of money.

So, where's the GDT?

Meh, there are prospects who could put up the numbers Michalek put up this year easily. Hoffman, Stone, Pageau, Da Costa. Put them in a position to succeed like Michalek was in and by this point I bet they'd have better goal totals.

Michalek's knee looked done earlier in the season. If it's back to 100%, then perhaps you take a 1 year chance, but you don't pay too much, that's for sure.

NEELY wrote:It's funny people say that there are prospects ready to take Michalek's spot, most notably Stone... but Stone is never healthy either and he's 21 so it's the same knock without any real tangible proof he's even good enough to be in that spot.  Getting rid of Michalek or Hemsky at this point is a mistake short of one or both asking for a stupid amount of money.

I'd rather miss the playoffs without Michalek than with him next year because at least we try something else rather than put the same Dung o the wall and hoping it sticks

LeKing wrote:

NEELY wrote:It's funny people say that there are prospects ready to take Michalek's spot, most notably Stone... but Stone is never healthy either and he's 21 so it's the same knock without any real tangible proof he's even good enough to be in that spot.  Getting rid of Michalek or Hemsky at this point is a mistake short of one or both asking for a stupid amount of money.

I'd rather miss the playoffs without Michalek than with him next year because at least we try something else rather than put the same Dung o the wall and hoping it sticks

Two words: Curtis Lazar (no pressure   )

SpezDispenser wrote:Meh, there are prospects who could put up the numbers Michalek put up this year easily.  Hoffman, Stone, Pageau, Da Costa.  Put them in a position to succeed like Michalek was in and by this point I bet they'd have better goal totals.

Michalek's knee looked done earlier in the season.  If it's back to 100%, then perhaps you take a 1 year chance, but you don't pay too much, that's for sure.

Awesome, so now you have no depth on lines 3 and 4. You don't sign Michalek and Hemsky and you have pretty close to no depth and that's with Ryan and MacArthur coming to UFA, so potentially in 1 years time your top winger actually might be Stone. Better hope he scores 25-30 next year because that's what he will need to provide based on your idea.

LeKing wrote:

NEELY wrote:It's funny people say that there are prospects ready to take Michalek's spot, most notably Stone... but Stone is never healthy either and he's 21 so it's the same knock without any real tangible proof he's even good enough to be in that spot.  Getting rid of Michalek or Hemsky at this point is a mistake short of one or both asking for a stupid amount of money.

I'd rather miss the playoffs without Michalek than with him next year because at least we try something else rather than put the same Dung o the wall and hoping it sticks

Again, no depth and no wingers signed beyond next year. Seems pretty stupid to be in that situation but that's just me. Top winger signed after next year at this point is Greening... scary.

NEELY wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:Meh, there are prospects who could put up the numbers Michalek put up this year easily.  Hoffman, Stone, Pageau, Da Costa.  Put them in a position to succeed like Michalek was in and by this point I bet they'd have better goal totals.

Michalek's knee looked done earlier in the season.  If it's back to 100%, then perhaps you take a 1 year chance, but you don't pay too much, that's for sure.

Awesome, so now you have no depth on lines 3 and 4.  You don't sign Michalek and Hemsky and you have pretty close to no depth and that's with Ryan and MacArthur coming to UFA, so potentially in 1 years time your top winger actually might be Stone.  Better hope he scores 25-30 next year because that's what he will need to provide based on your idea.  

I'll take my chances in either the trade route or free agency waaaaay before I take an unnecessary gamble on Michalek. Plus, this summer will be a 'tell all' summer. We need to sign Bobby Ryan and MacAurther before we make any decisions.

That said, I've really enjoyed watching Hemsky these last two games. I'll look forward to see if it fades as adrenaline, or if he's really this good at this stage of his career. I don't really care about *his* injury concerns, but I really care about Michalek's.

Also, in your scenario you're basically okaying a long term extension for Spezza, because if Hemsky has saved Michalek's career, he's also saved Spezza's career (in Ottawa). Are you certain you want that?

NEELY you're being a bit one-sided in this argument. You're basically saying that if you don't re-sign Michalek then you're also not re-signing Hemsky (no-one said that) and then you lose Ryan and MacArthur so Stone has to score 25-35 goals. Looks like you dragged that argument to the top of the hill and then just let it fly from there.

All anyone is saying (and, to be clear, I have not thrown my hat into either ring yet) is that they are leery (or outright against) re-signing Michalek given how he played. Hoffman, if given those top-six and PP minutes, would likely have produced the same or better numbers, as would Stone or Da Costa (not sure I agree on this one).

That's very possibly true. In any case, Michalek used to be good for 25-30+ goals per year and he is nowhere near that. We are certainly missing that production and it needs to be replaced. Are *you* sure that Michalek is the one to replace it? While I doubt that Hoffman or Stone will replace that production in their first full season, I don't think Michalek would, either. So if you're keeping him around to provide secondary or even tertiary scoring you better not pay him anything north of $2.5M.

So if you don't re-sign him, then what? Well, you could try for a UFA or even an RFA. Or trade for a pending free agent given how many players we have ready for that one-way.

SpezDispenser wrote:Meh, there are prospects who could put up the numbers Michalek put up this year easily.  Hoffman, Stone, Pageau, Da Costa.  Put them in a position to succeed like Michalek was in and by this point I bet they'd have better goal totals.

Michalek's knee looked done earlier in the season.  If it's back to 100%, then perhaps you take a 1 year chance, but you don't pay too much, that's for sure.

And there's the rub. He has gotten better as the year goes on and he's played in every game this year. He definitely doesn't look like the power forward he has in the past but maybe it's just conditioning and confidence. Would you rather take the risk with Michalek at 3.5-4 or pay Stastny 6-7 (assuming he makes it to UFA)?

wprager wrote:NEELY you're being a bit one-sided in this argument.  You're basically saying that if you don't re-sign Michalek then you're also not re-signing Hemsky (no-one said that) and then you lose Ryan and MacArthur so Stone has to score 25-35 goals.  Looks like you dragged that argument to the top of the hill and then just let it fly from there.

All anyone is saying (and, to be clear, I have not thrown my hat into either ring yet) is that they are leery (or outright against) re-signing Michalek given how he played.  Hoffman, if given those top-six and PP minutes, would likely have produced the same or better numbers, as would Stone or Da Costa (not sure I agree on this one).

That's very possibly true.  In any case, Michalek used to be good for 25-30+ goals per year and he is nowhere near that.  We are certainly missing that production and it needs to be replaced.  Are *you* sure that Michalek is the one to replace it?  While I doubt that Hoffman or Stone will replace that production in their first full season, I don't think Michalek would, either.  So if you're keeping him around to provide secondary or even tertiary scoring you better not pay him anything north of $2.5M.

So if you don't re-sign him, then what?  Well, you could try for a UFA or even an RFA.  Or trade for a pending free agent given how many players we have ready for that one-way.

I'm stating the facts. No top 6 wingers signed beyond next year, that's a fact. You plan for that kind of thing and despite what some fans hope and wish might happen Stone, Hoffman, Peumpel, Prince, and whoever else might be coming down the pipeline on the wing have not proven to be better players than any of the top 4 right now. GM's don't make their moves based on hope and faith either.

As for the 2.5 mil... Michalek isn't a 2.5 million dollar player and I have no idea where you grabbed that number from, he won't be making less than Greening, lol. Michalek and Hemsky are both around 4-4.5 mil for sure on a 3 or 4 years deal for sure.

As for trying for a UFA, who is out there that is better than Michalek right now that will come in at the same kind of price? Pretty much none. You going to give Moulson 5-6 years at 6 + mil? Grabovsky? I'm sure Vanek has already packed his bags for Ottawa. There are absolutely no better options out there right now than Michalek and Hemsky, none. Sorry, no options that are realistic.

Vandelay wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:Meh, there are prospects who could put up the numbers Michalek put up this year easily.  Hoffman, Stone, Pageau, Da Costa.  Put them in a position to succeed like Michalek was in and by this point I bet they'd have better goal totals.

Michalek's knee looked done earlier in the season.  If it's back to 100%, then perhaps you take a 1 year chance, but you don't pay too much, that's for sure.

And there's the rub.  He has gotten better as the year goes on and he's played in every game this year.  He definitely doesn't look like the power forward he has in the past but maybe it's just conditioning and confidence.  Would you rather take the risk with Michalek at 3.5-4 or pay Stastny 6-7 (assuming he makes it to UFA)?

Or giving Moulson a 30 million dollar deal? 65 year old Jagr? Maybe Vrbata but he's on the same level as Michalek and will be more expensive. There are literally no better options than either Michalek or Hemsky on 3 or 4 years deals.