SensBuzz is "reporting" Elliott will get signed this weekend

Who cares if we're making threads about these reports? I mean, we can all discuss them, what's the problem there?

We're not coming up with them, we're reporting on them. It's summer, it's slow, anything's gonna get picked up. That's the nature of these kind of sites. People love to talk hockey - and many times, these rumours are an outlet for that.

Again, okily dokily.

But that goes against what Cap'n Clutch was saying.

Rumors it is than, now on to Eklunds site. Why does everyone make fun of Eklund again?

notch4077 wrote:Again, okily dokily.

But that goes against what Cap'n Clutch was saying.

Rumors it is than, now on to Eklunds site. Why does everyone make fun of Eklund again?

Eklund goes out and has 'sources' who give him info. He's making these rumours up, we're not. We discuss everything that comes up, or we try to.

The last thing you'll see here is Heatley to LA! SD5. Kopitar and Doughty involved! More to come...

rooneypoo wrote:I blame it on the fact that there is so little news, and such a huge base of Sens fans just desperate to get the Heatley situation sorted out so they know what their team actually looks like this year.

The summer news season makes good people a little cabin feverish.

Fair enough.

I guess I don't get the fascination of posting something without facts to back it up. Who are we trying to impress?

notch4077 wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

notch4077 wrote:So, basically Rooney is right...Sensbuzz is crap.

Not sure of the length of contract and not sure of the dollar amount??? Are we sure he has the player right or is there anything else SensBuzz could get wrong???

All SensBuzz is going by in timing, I think we can all figure out for ourselves that Elliott is going to be signed SOON.

Seriously, why do people keep clicking on rumor sites and then reporting it on this quality site???

So we can discuss and cut the rumours down for fun. And it might be pertinent info, why not? There's really nothing else going on right now.

Bang on. I would see it being an issue if it was posted as a topic without the caveat (sp) that it was SensBuzz or not mentioning that the rumour has weak sources. I like when this stuff is posted because at the very least we can discuss the merits of such a transaction occuring.

That's is fine, but lately it hasn't been happening like this. People are posting rumors and have no source to back it up. I have no time to look any deeper than these three topics, but I remember SpezD and I getting into it over a false report not to long ago either.

I just don't want this site turning into a rumor site. Here are 3 threads in the last couple days (2 today) to have crap in them.

http://www.gmhockey.com/member-s-story-breakers-f8/bertuzzi-to-sign-with-leafs-t2891.htm#85776

http://www.gmhockey.com/member-s-story-breakers-f8/ilya-kovalchuk-to-sign-monster-extension-t2829.htm

http://www.gmhockey.com/this-just-in-f7/tribune-prospal-notified-that-he-will-be-bought-out-t2894.htm
Page 1 - half way down, Sykora going to TBay

Like I said to you before SpezD, just trying to keep you and your fine site honest.

I don't know if you noticed but those three threads were all posted in the Breaking Rumours forum. That is where you put rumours. We're not a rumour site but if you've got one and you want people to discuss it that would be where you put it. I personally don't normally post in there because I don't regularly have people giving me rumour information. When I do it's from someone I trust.

I also take rumours for what they are as do most members here. It's all 2nd, 3rd or 4th hand stuff that could have been some random discussion.

These posts are discussed on the merits of such a move occuring and the likelyhood of it occuring.

Am I wrong here? Are there more people like yourself that feel we are reporting rumours as fact and slipping into a rumour reporting site that boasts about our accuracy and how great we are at getting inside information?

SpezDispenser wrote:

notch4077 wrote:Again, okily dokily.

But that goes against what Cap'n Clutch was saying.

Rumors it is than, now on to Eklunds site. Why does everyone make fun of Eklund again?

Eklund goes out and has 'sources' who give him info. He's making these rumours up, we're not. We discuss everything that comes up, or we try to.

The last thing you'll see here is Heatley to LA! SD5. Kopitar and Doughty involved! More to come...

Even if said rumor comes from Eklund...things that make you go hmmm?!?!?!
https://gmcentralhockey.forumotion.net/ottawa-centaurs-f31/a-rumour-is-still-a-rumour-even-if-it-is-eklund-t2884.htm
Not the last thing I saw...

BTW I noticed that this was posted in the Sens threads. That right there should be an indicator that it's not even rumour worthy. It's a side note of what another site is reporting. If you look at the topic it even has reporting in quotes.

There are rare instances where rumours are purported to originate from here. Most are gleaned from other sites and represented as such.

Any exceptions are hardly noticeable. Besides, I find "reports" from the more dubious sites amusing.

notch4077 wrote:
Even if said rumor comes from Eklund...things that make you go hmmm?!?!?!
http://www.gmhockey.com/ottawa-centaurs-f31/a-rumour-is-still-a-rumour-even-if-it-is-eklund-t2884.htm
Not the last thing I saw...

Sure, why not? What's the worst that can happen, it doesn't happen?

Umm, did anyone even bother reading my sort-of rebuttal? When I first started this I used the quote marks around "reporting" because I realize the source is not exactly the Washington Post. I was hoping for a discussion explaining why this was way off or why it actually made sense. I was a little late with my "analysis" (note the use of the quotation marks yet again) but my conclusion is that Elliott would *never* sign that contract.

Now, back to business. SD, your post seems to imply that there's no way the Sens offer that contract, as Elliott is not worth more than $700 this season. PKC, you are of the opinion that if we had a chance to get Elliott to sign that, don't even hesitate for a second.

Who is less wrong here? You know where I stand.

I agree with where Prags started - around $700-750 for year one and maybe $875 for year two. If BM can talk him into signing for three, then maybe it jumps to $1-1.1 (i.e., his most recent salary, but this time on a one-way).

What's that work out to? I think it's around a $900K cap hit if he signs for three, only $800K if for two years.

Acrobat wrote:I agree with where Prags started - around $700-750 for year one and maybe $875 for year two. If BM can talk him into signing for three, then maybe it jumps to $1-1.1 (i.e., his most recent salary, but this time on a one-way).

What's that work out to? I think it's around a $900K cap hit if he signs for three, only $800K if for two years.

If he signs a 2 year deal then he's eligible for arbitration. Last year he managed semi-decent numbers, as a rookie, on a below-average team. His number early on were actually much better, so it's possible that he was not ready for playing every second night. As a backup, with better team-defense in front of him, his numbers should be very, very good. Also, the Sens just might move Leclaire before he's gone as a UFA, so Elliott may already be playing as the #1. What do you think he'd get in arbitration if he's got a SV% of .915 with a 2.5 GAA?

wprager wrote:

Acrobat wrote:I agree with where Prags started - around $700-750 for year one and maybe $875 for year two. If BM can talk him into signing for three, then maybe it jumps to $1-1.1 (i.e., his most recent salary, but this time on a one-way).

What's that work out to? I think it's around a $900K cap hit if he signs for three, only $800K if for two years.

If he signs a 2 year deal then he's eligible for arbitration. Last year he managed semi-decent numbers, as a rookie, on a below-average team. His number early on were actually much better, so it's possible that he was not ready for playing every second night. As a backup, with better team-defense in front of him, his numbers should be very, very good. Also, the Sens just might move Leclaire before he's gone as a UFA, so Elliott may already be playing as the #1. What do you think he'd get in arbitration if he's got a SV% of .915 with a 2.5 GAA?

If you can ink a guy with the progression of improvement that Elliott has shown to a three-year $3-million or less deal, why wouldn't you? Why leave it to arbitration? Or to next year?

PKC, my point is that I don't think Elliott would sign that deal, because after two years he could get a lot more via arbitration (or threat thereof).

In other words, we agree.

wprager wrote:PKC, my point is that I don't think Elliott would sign that deal, because after two years he could get a lot more via arbitration (or threat thereof).

In other words, we agree.

Hence my wording as well - "If BM can talk him into signing for three..."

I'm not sure it's a question of talking him into it though. He's young by goaltender standards and has a real chance to play NHL hockey here for a long, long time. First he has to pay his dues. He was very good last year and for that he'll earn a one-way ticket, but I would be surprised if he balked at a one year 700K contract. If there's truly no doubt, then you go for the 3 year, 3 million, but that's where the Sens have a real chance to save some cap space for the next couple of years.

He'll get his dues soon enough. He has the makings of a very solid talent.

SpezDispenser wrote:I'm not sure it's a question of talking him into it though. He's young by goaltender standards and has a real chance to play NHL hockey here for a long, long time. First he has to pay his dues. He was very good last year and for that he'll earn a one-way ticket, but I would be surprised if he balked at a one year 700K contract. If there's truly no doubt, then you go for the 3 year, 3 million, but that's where the Sens have a real chance to save some cap space for the next couple of years.

He'll get his dues soon enough. He has the makings of a very solid talent.

He's a smart kid, and he'll have a good agent.

Given the circumstances, he's going to know that the future looks bright, so the two-year option may be a better one from a financial standpoint. Only problem is that if he gets hurt, or things don't work out quite the way everyone hopes (Price comes to mind), then a big payday in two years isn't such a sure thing. And he may not get the exposure he wants if he is stuck behind Leclaire.

The flip side is that if he takes the three year option, he is contracted beyond Leclaire. He then becomes the default #1 when Leclaire's contract runs out, or if he's traded at the deadline of the final year (which incidentally may be the better option, as there is some return). He then has another year to really show his stuff, and by then, he knows that Karlsson, Cowan, and perhaps some of the others, such as Wiercioch, will be shaking off the rookie mistakes, and will help him to look good. It becomes a strong, young back end, oozing with talent, mostly on cheap contracts, so they are especially motivated to earn their big payday still.

I think you could make an argument either way, but if he is at all inclined to stay in Ottawa, the three year option may in fact be a reasonable one. If I'm in Murray's place, I push hard for this, even at the expense of a higher cap hit, as I have no doubt that he will be our franchise goalie for many years (see my blog entry from last Sept: http://GMHockey.sosblog.com/Member-s-Blog-b2/Future-Franchise-Goalie-b2-p2.htm)

Acrobat wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:I'm not sure it's a question of talking him into it though. He's young by goaltender standards and has a real chance to play NHL hockey here for a long, long time. First he has to pay his dues. He was very good last year and for that he'll earn a one-way ticket, but I would be surprised if he balked at a one year 700K contract. If there's truly no doubt, then you go for the 3 year, 3 million, but that's where the Sens have a real chance to save some cap space for the next couple of years.

He'll get his dues soon enough. He has the makings of a very solid talent.

He's a smart kid, and he'll have a good agent.

Given the circumstances, he's going to know that the future looks bright, so the two-year option may be a better one from a financial standpoint. Only problem is that if he gets hurt, or things don't work out quite the way everyone hopes (Price comes to mind), then a big payday in two years isn't such a sure thing. And he may not get the exposure he wants if he is stuck behind Leclaire.

The flip side is that if he takes the three year option, he is contracted beyond Leclaire. He then becomes the default #1 when Leclaire's contract runs out, or if he's traded at the deadline of the final year (which incidentally may be the better option, as there is some return). He then has another year to really show his stuff, and by then, he knows that Karlsson, Cowan, and perhaps some of the others, such as Wiercioch, will be shaking off the rookie mistakes, and will help him to look good. It becomes a strong, young back end, oozing with talent, mostly on cheap contracts, so they are especially motivated to earn their big payday still.

I think you could make an argument either way, but if he is at all inclined to stay in Ottawa, the three year option may in fact be a reasonable one. If I'm in Murray's place, I push hard for this, even at the expense of a higher cap hit, as I have no doubt that he will be our franchise goalie for many years (see my blog entry from last Sept: http://GMHockey.sosblog.com/Member-s-Blog-b2/Future-Franchise-Goalie-b2-p2.htm)

There you go again! Gloating about the blog we already gave you your N4L award for!!!

As far as being our franchise goaltender of the future, I'd have to say while it's very possible, I think Leclaire, and down the road, Lehner are going to have something to say about that. Good problem to have though, even though the goalie market is in the toilet right now (except on Long Island apparently).