Silly Season 2009: Free Agents and Trades--Who Goes Where?

Beer, I don't know the details of the discussions between Murray and Campbell, so I can't speak to that.

I remember Garrioch or Brennan writing a lengthy article (which I have wasted the better part of an hour trying to find) that stated Murray offered Campbell slightly less term (6 years maybe?) and about 1 mil less per season on average. In that same article Murray stated that he couldn't commit any longer due to the Sens cap situation at the time and moving forward.

I don't recall if they had quotations on Murrays statement or if they were speaking on Murrays behalf, which would weaken the integrity of those already suspect writers. But that is what I was referring to and I'm thinking if we cared enough to dig it up that is what we'd find.

Either way, that alone doesn't mean it's a bad deal. I'll have to evaluate Campbell's performance over the next few years to see how good/bad that contract is.

I've already said my piece about potentially bringing the Sedin twins into the fold. It's a rarity, even in today's NHL, for a team to have four 80+ point players on their roster.

I'm not sure what kind of cap situation that puts us in, or if I'm particularly crazy about their demands for 12 year contracts each.

But it is an interesting scenario no less.

You could piece together 3 lines around these duos that look something like this:

player-Spezza-Alfredsson
player-Sedin-Sedin
player-Fisher-Foligno

I think though at this point, with cap considerations being what they are, that we might be better off spending that money on elite defensemen, eventhough there aren't many available, rather than on the twins.

Such a tough decision though...really hard to pass up on them considering they are very good on both sides of the puck.

12 YEARS?!?!

The ONLY way Murray should ever consider taking on Campbell's contract is if he knows for a fact that he can't get Bouwmeester and if there's more coming back from Chicago.

They call Heatley's contract an "albatross"? what exactly does that make Campbell's?? You can say all you want about him being a great rushing defenseman, but we've all seen him play...he definitely isn't a $7 million defenseman. He just happened to be a UFA during the right year... He's the Daniel Briere of D-men.

cas wrote:The ONLY way Murray should ever consider taking on Campbell's contract is if he knows for a fact that he can't get Bouwmeester and if there's more coming back from Chicago.

They call Heatley's contract an "albatross"? what exactly does that make Campbell's?? You can say all you want about him being a great rushing defenseman, but we've all seen him play...he definitely isn't a $7 million defenseman. He just happened to be a UFA during the right year... He's the Daniel Briere of D-men.

Funny you should compare Heatley, Campbell and Briere...all of whom have contracts that have been criticized as being 'overpaid' and 'albatrosses'.

If you were to go through the list of UFA contracts in the NHL, you'd probably find more examples.

The players wanting to get as much as they can is quite understandable; and the GMs all have their reasons for paying the kind of money they do.

One can agree or disagree with the logic, but there is invariably a logic that has been formulated and accepted by both labour and management.

Fans, naturally, see it differently, depending on the fortunes of their team. When one's team is winning with that expensive player, the dollars seem less important.

And now, back to our scheduled programming.

Campbell and Briere's contracts were both highly questionable at the time of the signing, whereas Heatley's was well justified, having just finished back-to-back 50 goal/100 point seasons.

Since that time, Heatley has gone dowhill, no question, but he still put up 40/80 in only 72 games a season ago. He then put up 39/72 last season playing for a team with no transition game for 2/3 of the season; a team that saw its goals-per-game go from 3 under Murray and then Paddock, to 2.4 under Hartsburg, before going back up to 3 post-Hartsburg...

Beyond any of that, I've watched the guy play for the past 4 years and have seen virtually every game he's played over the past two seasons of "regression" and I can tell you quite clearly that he is far more defensively reliable than his detractors make him out to be. He makes good defensive plays (often game savers) frequently.

That part of the criticism is largely misplaced. What isn't misplaced is the criticism of his effort level and willingness to take the team on his shoulders - not to mention his skating. If he wants to play (which he clearly didn't in his last few months with this team) then he is a premier forward in the NHL.

There's no logic in justifying criticism of Heatley's contract with comparison to the contracts of Briere, Campbell, and anyone like them.

cas wrote:Campbell and Briere's contracts were both highly questionable at the time of the signing, whereas Heatley's was well justified, having just finished back-to-back 50 goal/100 point seasons.

Since that time, Heatley has gone dowhill, no question, but he still put up 40/80 in only 72 games a season ago. He then put up 39/72 last season playing for a team with no transition game for 2/3 of the season; a team that saw its goals-per-game go from 3 under Murray and then Paddock, to 2.4 under Hartsburg, before going back up to 3 post-Hartsburg...

Beyond any of that, I've watched the guy play for the past 4 years and have seen virtually every game he's played over the past two seasons of "regression" and I can tell you quite clearly that he is far more defensively reliable than his detractors make him out to be. He makes good defensive plays (often game savers) frequently.

That part of the criticism is largely misplaced. What isn't misplaced is the criticism of his effort level and willingness to take the team on his shoulders - not to mention his skating. If he wants to play (which he clearly didn't in his last few months with this team) then he is a premier forward in the NHL.

There's no logic in justifying criticism of Heatley's contract with comparison to the contracts of Briere, Campbell, and anyone like them.

Rack Him.

^Um, I still think the contracts are comparable at some level.

davetherave wrote:Murray elected to make Heatley the highest paid player in the NHL, locking him into a contract that some have criticized as 'untradeable'.

You're the only person I've ever seen who's said that.

Certainly they are comparable at some level, but no so blithely as was done above.

What can be said is that all three have underachieved. Yes Chicago had substantial success this season and Campbell was a large part of that, but you'll be hard pressed to find an analyst who would tag him as Chicago's number 1 D-man last season. Moreover, you'll find some who would be willing to place him as low as 4 on the depth chart.

Fair enough Cas I can see what you're saying

Heatley's contract was widely regarded as both shrewd and under market value at the time. This is not Brian Campbell or Danny Briere, this is one of the best snipers of our generation.

SpezDispenser wrote:Heatley's contract was widely regarded as both shrewd and under market value at the time. This is not Brian Campbell or Danny Briere, this is one of the best snipers of our generation.

I don't even think this is a debatable point either. Why are we comparing Heatley's contract (which looks less attractive now, but that's due to his personality) to some gross ones, like Briere? Apples and Oranges.

asq2 wrote:

davetherave wrote:Murray elected to make Heatley the highest paid player in the NHL, locking him into a contract that some have criticized as 'untradeable'.

You're the only person I've ever seen who's said that.

OK...and?

BTW are you cheering for the Ottatroit Redators or the Detwa SenWings these days? One never knows with you.

asq2 wrote:

davetherave wrote:Murray elected to make Heatley the highest paid player in the NHL, locking him into a contract that some have criticized as 'untradeable'.

You're the only person I've ever seen who's said that.

FYI, it was Allen Panzeri in The Citizen who reported that.

"the term and money of his contract are difficult for a lot of teams to deal with" one prominent US based agent said Thursday. " I've talked to a lot of GMs over the last few days and they say he is untradeable except to 3 or 4 teams, and those are teams that are not desirable."

Time for you to do some hockey homework.

davetherave wrote:

asq2 wrote:

davetherave wrote:Murray elected to make Heatley the highest paid player in the NHL, locking him into a contract that some have criticized as 'untradeable'.

You're the only person I've ever seen who's said that.

OK...and?

BTW are you cheering for the Ottatroit Redators or the Detwa SenWings these days? One never knows with you.

I've already answered this question. :n:

davetherave wrote:

asq2 wrote:

davetherave wrote:Murray elected to make Heatley the highest paid player in the NHL, locking him into a contract that some have criticized as 'untradeable'.

You're the only person I've ever seen who's said that.

FYI, it was Allen Panzeri in The Citizen who reported that.

"the term and money of his contract are difficult for a lot of teams to deal with" one prominent US based agent said Thursday. " I've talked to a lot of GMs over the last few days and they say he is untradeable except to 3 or 4 teams, and those are teams that are not desirable."

Time for you to do some hockey homework.

Fair enough. I hadn't seen that article.

Albeit, the exception does change its meaning somewhat.

SpezDispenser wrote:Heatley's contract was widely regarded as both shrewd and under market value at the time. This is not Brian Campbell or Danny Briere, this is one of the best snipers of our generation.

Agreed, and the only reason it may have a black mark on it lately is his attitude, like someone pointed out above my post.