Jay Bouwmeester rights for a 3rd rounder

cas wrote:

wprager wrote:

cas wrote:

MurderOnIce wrote:If we think we can sign him... Done. I don't think we can and I don't think we want to make a big cap mistake again.

Having too much money up front was our big cap mistake; not having too much money in too few players. Having one D at 7 plus one forward at 7 plus a few more in all three positions between 3.5 and 5.5 is a reasonable cap stagger.

I have to say, though, this thread is amusing. It wasn't 6 months ago that every one of you was falling over themselves to add Bouwmeester to the roster and most of you weren't even trying to subtract one of the other big contracts.

Now that Heatley is moving on, it possibly opens the reasonable possibility of signing him and no one wants him? What changed?

The cap situation *may* be changing, if not this year, then the next.

Also, giving up a potential 50-goal scorer is scary. You'll never replace him, which puts a bit of a cloud over things. I know on paper it looks like all we were missing was that elite puck mover, but if we add one, while subtracting a 50-goal scorer, it's not the same as adding a puck mover with all other pieces in place.

Another thing that has changed is our depth at D. We've got two potentially elite D-men coming up plus Campoli. Maybe, just maybe, that elite puck-mover is no-longer our primary concern.

I never thought it was... Character and a willingness to battle: thats what was missing. Getting rid of Heatley will solve a big chunk of that problem; I promise you that much.

As for the Cap, the recession is hardly going to be what some have feared it to be and things will recover. By the time we get to deciding the cap for 2010-11, the economy will have recovered by a relatively significant margin (5-10%) and the effect of the cap won't be as extreme as is expected now. I would be pretty surprised if the cap dropped below $50 million at any point, going forward.

Heatley refuses to battle in the corners any more after that injury from Draper, maybe he didn't do it that well to begin with, Alfie is the grinder on that line.

FFS I lost my response... Dave, Suffice to say...

Chara = Norris Trophy. Campbell = second pairing in Chicago and limts team's ability to keep their young core together. The rest of the guys aren't UFA signings other than Hossa and his signing was an anomoly. 1 year for the most sought after UFA, come on.

As for Bouwmeester worth, it depends on the team. To me as a Senator I would go as high as $6M over 5 Years. His agent would quickly slam down the phone on me and I would start to get back to finding a home for Heatley. He will likely sign out west for a monster deal. My guess being 8 year $64M.. guess...

Eklund is making up 'reporting' a rumour that Bouwmeester is set to go to Vancouver E4+ for what it is worth

MurderOnIce wrote:Eklund is making up 'reporting' a rumour that Bouwmeester is set to go to Vancouver E4+ for what it is worth

Ek also said it was an E4 for the Swedish Monster to be a Leaf yesterday, so his rating system is like him, a joke.

SensFan71 wrote:

MurderOnIce wrote:Eklund is making up 'reporting' a rumour that Bouwmeester is set to go to Vancouver E4+ for what it is worth

Ek also said it was an E4 for the Swedish Monster to be a Leaf yesterday, so his rating system is like him, a joke.

Keep in mind that an E4 doesn't denote that a deal is any closer than an E1 (in more ways that one :^^^^: ).

It's just a difference in terms of who is the source.

asq2 wrote:

SensFan71 wrote:

MurderOnIce wrote:Eklund is making up 'reporting' a rumour that Bouwmeester is set to go to Vancouver E4+ for what it is worth

Ek also said it was an E4 for the Swedish Monster to be a Leaf yesterday, so his rating system is like him, a joke.

Keep in mind that an E4 doesn't denote that a deal is any closer than an E1 (in more ways that one :^^^^: ).

It's just a difference in terms of who is the source.

figured he just threw them out there because he felt like it, or Burt told him too.

davetherave wrote:

MurderOnIce wrote:

asq2 wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:I can't see Bouwmeester being 3 million dollars better than Kuba, for instance. I'm leaning heavily towards no thanks.

I as well. Especially if we take a defenceman at #9. Then he's not really necessary for the present or the future.

Would be nice, but I think he's going to get way too much money.

He is going to get at least Campbell money and I am now thinking the Hawks are regretting that. I have moved into thinking that UFA signing of top tier players is really really silly. Everyone overpays and gets in bidding wars. I don't remember one good contract of a top tier UFA. Chara's was okay and is paying dividends but I wouldn't call it a 'bargain', it was fair market value... the rest aree GROSSLY inflated.

So...what's your logic and definition for 'fair market value'?

Chara got more money than Campbell, and the Bruins went out in Round Two while the Hawks went to the Conference Finals. What evidence do you have Chicago is 'regretting that' signing?

Campbell is one of the highest paid defenders in the league and is not even on their first pairing. How are they not "regretting that signing"? How do they afford to keep Keith and Barker when Campbell takes up so much cap space.

PS Is E4+ significantly stronger than an E4 or just slightly?

Dan Spiegel is following Ek's 'tale' with a what's Vancouver getting back... Their 1st round pick and Alex Burrows... WTF?! Pretty high price to pay for 6 days of negotiation. I swear they pass around some good stuff over at HB... Seth Rogan should work there...

Mojo wrote:

davetherave wrote:

MurderOnIce wrote:

asq2 wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:I can't see Bouwmeester being 3 million dollars better than Kuba, for instance. I'm leaning heavily towards no thanks.

I as well. Especially if we take a defenceman at #9. Then he's not really necessary for the present or the future.

Would be nice, but I think he's going to get way too much money.

He is going to get at least Campbell money and I am now thinking the Hawks are regretting that. I have moved into thinking that UFA signing of top tier players is really really silly. Everyone overpays and gets in bidding wars. I don't remember one good contract of a top tier UFA. Chara's was okay and is paying dividends but I wouldn't call it a 'bargain', it was fair market value... the rest aree GROSSLY inflated.

So...what's your logic and definition for 'fair market value'?

Chara got more money than Campbell, and the Bruins went out in Round Two while the Hawks went to the Conference Finals. What evidence do you have Chicago is 'regretting that' signing?

Campbell is one of the highest paid defenders in the league and is not even on their first pairing. How are they not "regretting that signing"? How do they afford to keep Keith and Barker when Campbell takes up so much cap space.

PS Is E4+ significantly stronger than an E4 or just slightly?

Well, you obviously haven't been reading the Hawks thread on this site.

Tallon already stated that while he knows he overpaid, it was well worth it. You can read all about it there.

MurderOnIce wrote:

asq2 wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:I can't see Bouwmeester being 3 million dollars better than Kuba, for instance. I'm leaning heavily towards no thanks.

I as well. Especially if we take a defenceman at #9. Then he's not really necessary for the present or the future.

Would be nice, but I think he's going to get way too much money.

He is going to get at least Campbell money and I am now thinking the Hawks are regretting that. I have moved into thinking that UFA signing of top tier players is really really silly. Everyone overpays and gets in bidding wars. I don't remember one good contract of a top tier UFA. Chara's was okay and is paying dividends but I wouldn't call it a 'bargain', it was fair market value... the rest aree GROSSLY inflated.

PS MOI> I am not disagreeing with you...just trying understand how you decide what is 'fair value'.

There is no 'Warren Buffett Index' for NHL hockey players as far as I know...

It's 'sign who you think you need and pay what you gotta pay'. If the team wins with the player, it was a good deal, if not, it isn't...right?

So what JayBo gets, and what the Panthers might get for his rights, IMHO, will have less to do with his 'value' than how badly teams want him.

davetherave wrote:

Well, you obviously haven't been reading the Hawks thread on this site.

Tallon already stated that while he knows he overpaid, it was well worth it. You can read all about it there.

I appreciate you are a Hawks fan and most likely a Tallon fan. Me not so much. I think there are many bad decisions over the years that lead to some high picks which are rejuvenating the club. Success despite the management. But again that is just my opinion. If he is happy and the Hawks are happy than so be it. It is their team and they are the professionals I guess. They made the conference finals... it will just be tough to keep the core together like the Wings have seemed to manage.

MurderOnIce wrote:

davetherave wrote:

Well, you obviously haven't been reading the Hawks thread on this site.

Tallon already stated that while he knows he overpaid, it was well worth it. You can read all about it there.

I appreciate you are a Hawks fan and most likely a Tallon fan. Me not so much. I think there are many bad decisions over the years that lead to some high picks which are rejuvenating the club. Success despite the management. But again that is just my opinion. If he is happy and the Hawks are happy than so be it. It is their team and they are the professionals I guess. They made the conference finals... it will just be tough to keep the core together like the Wings have seemed to manage.

MOI, being a 'Hawks fan' doesn't preclude being objective about the club and management's decision making.

I am not a 'Tallon fan' either...I look at what he does, and my assessment is a fan's assessment, as I don't know all the whys and wherefores of the hockey business.

Some decisions he has made I like, some not so much. But the enormous progress the club has made speaks for itself.

As far as next year goes, I take a 'wait and see' attitude as I have always taken.

But I AM interested in knowing your criteria for evaluation of UFAs...because I find there is very little discernable logic as to how much players are paid. It seems as filled with 'irrational exuberance' as the financial and real estate markets...and anything else where people compete to pay as much as possible for an asset.

...if you get my drift...

davetherave wrote:

MurderOnIce wrote:

davetherave wrote:

Well, you obviously haven't been reading the Hawks thread on this site.

Tallon already stated that while he knows he overpaid, it was well worth it. You can read all about it there.

I appreciate you are a Hawks fan and most likely a Tallon fan. Me not so much. I think there are many bad decisions over the years that lead to some high picks which are rejuvenating the club. Success despite the management. But again that is just my opinion. If he is happy and the Hawks are happy than so be it. It is their team and they are the professionals I guess. They made the conference finals... it will just be tough to keep the core together like the Wings have seemed to manage.

MOI, being a 'Hawks fan' doesn't preclude being objective about the club and management's decision making.

I am not a 'Tallon fan' either...I look at what he does, and my assessment is a fan's assessment, as I don't know all the whys and wherefores of the hockey business.

Some decisions he has made I like, some not so much. But the enormous progress the club has made speaks for itself.

As far as next year goes, I take a 'wait and see' attitude as I have always taken.

But I AM interested in knowing your criteria for evaluation of UFAs...because I find there is very little discernable logic as to how much players are paid. It seems as filled with 'irrational exuberance' as the financial and real estate markets...and anything else where people compete to pay as much as possible for an asset.

...if you get my drift...

I am in total agreement with this. I am a tightwad plain and simple. If I was shopping around July 1 I would hope to be as smart as Murray has been. He bet some of his chips but he didn't go all in on the big names just to do something.

So my criteria for evaluating free agents would be pretty strict but I am not an expert..

• How did the player do in his last year after signing a contract up/down versus his contract year?
  
• Are there reasons other than salary that would make him happy to play for my club?
  
• Is he open to taking less up front in exchange for term that would allow us to still ice a competitive team?
  
• How does he relate to others at his position and would he takle what is comparable to his level, not just the inflated UFA value?
  
• What is his injuryt status career-wise? recently?
  
• Do we have anyone in the system that is as good or will be within the early term of the contract requested?
  
• Does he fill a leadership void/compliment existing leadership?
  
• Do the specific intangibles he brings to the table match a need we have?
  
• Are we competing against our division rivals for this player?
  

Campbell is a perfect example IMO. In Buffalo he was offered $5M for term. I believe that is his real value in today's NHL. He is a solid 2-3 defenceman depending on which team you are and what your needs are. He is an excellent PP QB but lacks size and lacks some defensive zone desparation/positioning. Not exactly one dimensional but leaning toward one of the two dimensions. As Brian Murray I would have started at $5M that Buffalo offered, see if it was just situational and if he has a softspot for his junior city. If he hangs up right away then fine. If he calls back and wants to negotiate than I know he fills a particular need the club has and re-evaluate what he would mean to the Senators. I think that number was $6M fo 6 years and he balked at that so Murray said thanks, but no thanks...

MOI, thanks.

How would you apply these criteria to say, JayBo?

davetherave wrote:MOI, thanks.

How would you apply these criteria to say, JayBo?

I kinda threw the list together but...

<LI>How did the player do in his last year after signing a contract up/down versus his contract year?
Without checking I believe his numbers,while not gawdy have been consistent throughout his career
<LI>Are there reasons other than salary that would make him happy to play for my club?
Bit of a stretch but play with his buddy Jason Spezza?
<LI>Is he open to taking less up front in exchange for term that would allow us to still ice a competitive team?
I don't think so. I believe he wants both term and $$$ and he will get it
<LI>How does he relate to others at his position and would he takle what is comparable to his level, not just the inflated UFA value?
He is the best available some say top 5. I say top 10 (around 10)
<LI>What is his injuryt status career-wise? recently?
I think he has been healthy throughout without many injuries and certainly no major ones
<LI>Do we have anyone in the system that is as good or will be within the early term of the contract requested?
Weircoch?
<LI>Does he fill a leadership void/compliment existing leadership?
He is a quiet guy. Not sure how much of a leader he is but I haven't heard cancer at all.
<LI>Do the specific intangibles he brings to the table match a need we have?
Speed, great puck handling, good first pass while maintaining underrated shut down skills
<LI>Are we competing against our division rivals for this player?
Toronto maybe?</LI>

This criteria to me means we take a shot but don't sell the farm to get him... just me though

Thx MOI, so how much do you think JayBo will get as a UFA...and from who?

i like the way you think out the players MOI maybe its also because i am a bit of a tight wad but i definitely like the criteria you use

thanks HH22000