GAME DAY: Ottawa Senators @ Pittsburgh Penguins - 7:00pm ET - Thu. Jan. 28. 2010

My only issue with Spezza, is that as much as people state that the teams future is tied to him I for one don't believe that. Every time he is out injured, the team seems to continue forward and in some cases actually improve, as the team plays a more consistant game.

At some point in the next 3 months I think he has to prove to Murray and Clouston that this team is better off with him than without him. If he can't show that he is making a major contribution to the team, and I believe it has to be major based on his status (1st line center) and the $$$ paid to him, then he HAS to be moved out. Not because I want him gone, but for the financal (cap and payroll) future of this team.

rooneypoo wrote:

Um, yes.


The reason N4L, I, and a couple of others keep coming back to Spezza is simple: he turns 27 years old, he's our highest paid player, his NMC kicks in in 5 months, and yet he's always "almost there" or whatever. Much of the team's future hangs on what we do with Spezza and how he develops. If we keep Spezza and he goes wrong for us -- and there are plenty of warning signs that suggest that just might happen -- this team is going to be saddled with a big, unmoveable contract for a long time.

Oh My god, I didn't think he was that hold. I had to go and check it. Wow

Devo wrote:My only issue with Spezza, is that as much as people state that the teams future is tied to him I for one don't believe that. Every time he is out injured, the team seems to continue forward and in some cases actually improve, as the team plays a more consistant game.

At some point in the next 3 months I think he has to prove to Murray and Clouston that this team is better off with him than without him. If he can't show that he is making a major contribution to the team, and I believe it has to be major based on his status (1st line center) and the $$$ paid to him, then he HAS to be moved out. Not because I want him gone, but for the financal (cap and payroll) future of this team.

I don't think the team hinges on Spezza at all. I think he'll be the top point producer, but he won't be the PKer, the guy with the most ice time, nothing like that. Is he worth the cap hit for 85 points a year? Yes. Why? Because you need to score to win, simple as that. And he and Michalek will form a nice duo for the next 5 years +.

PKC wrote:

N4L wrote:How is it built for the playoffs? Goalies - 0 playoff games combined. Captain - 0 playoff games. Doughtey, Johnsson, Kopitar, Simmons, Moeller, and a hand full of others, 0 playoff games. Add in Kovulchuk who has only 4, all which were losses, even with him I dont see The Kings making any real noise.

One step at a time for that team, first step is making the playoffs.

Did you even watch Chicago last year?

Chicago had a Stanley Cup winning goaltender in nets, LA has Glass. Thats such a large difference that it speaks for it's self. Also, LA's blueline is no where near as good or complete as Chicago's was.

SpezDispenser wrote:

Devo wrote:My only issue with Spezza, is that as much as people state that the teams future is tied to him I for one don't believe that. Every time he is out injured, the team seems to continue forward and in some cases actually improve, as the team plays a more consistant game.

At some point in the next 3 months I think he has to prove to Murray and Clouston that this team is better off with him than without him. If he can't show that he is making a major contribution to the team, and I believe it has to be major based on his status (1st line center) and the $$$ paid to him, then he HAS to be moved out. Not because I want him gone, but for the financal (cap and payroll) future of this team.

I don't think the team hinges on Spezza at all. I think he'll be the top point producer, but he won't be the PKer, the guy with the most ice time, nothing like that. Is he worth the cap hit for 85 points a year? Yes. Why? Because you need to score to win, simple as that. And he and Michalek will form a nice duo for the next 5 years +.

To say that your team doesn't hinge on your highest paid player -- the guy who has a $7 mil / yr deal for 7 years, the biggest deal in Sens history -- is either a form of lunacy, or a damning admission about Spezza. Time to think about that one a little more, SD.

If Spezza was doing what he was doing now, and for the last 2+ years, on a $4 mil deal, shorter term, most people wouldn't be on him very much, if at all. I know I wouldn't. The fact is that you can't afford to have 1/8th of your team's salary cap dedicated to a guy whom your team doesn't hinge on. We don't need $7 mil complimentary players.

rooneypoo wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

Devo wrote:My only issue with Spezza, is that as much as people state that the teams future is tied to him I for one don't believe that. Every time he is out injured, the team seems to continue forward and in some cases actually improve, as the team plays a more consistant game.

At some point in the next 3 months I think he has to prove to Murray and Clouston that this team is better off with him than without him. If he can't show that he is making a major contribution to the team, and I believe it has to be major based on his status (1st line center) and the $$$ paid to him, then he HAS to be moved out. Not because I want him gone, but for the financal (cap and payroll) future of this team.

I don't think the team hinges on Spezza at all. I think he'll be the top point producer, but he won't be the PKer, the guy with the most ice time, nothing like that. Is he worth the cap hit for 85 points a year? Yes. Why? Because you need to score to win, simple as that. And he and Michalek will form a nice duo for the next 5 years +.

To say that your team doesn't hinge on your highest paid player -- the guy who has a $7 mil / yr deal for 7 years, the biggest deal in Sens history -- is either a form of lunacy, or a damning admission about Spezza. Time to think about that one a little more, SD.

If Spezza was doing what he was doing now, and for the last 2+ years, on a $4 mil deal, shorter term, most people wouldn't be on him very much, if at all. I know I wouldn't. The fact is that you can't afford to have 1/8th of your team's salary cap dedicated to a guy whom your team doesn't hinge on. We don't need $7 mil complimentary players.

I can say this really because I'm standing behind you...

That's what I was trying to say. Basically, if he's not our best player, and when he's out for 4, 5, 6 weeks we all don't worry every day whether our season is done, then we should seriously consider whether we need him.

Do you really believe when Pittsburgh, Washington, or Chicago lose their top payed player on their top line for 6 weeks that the team and fans don't sit down and figure out a way to survive?

When Alfie went down we all thought, how can we survive till he gets back. When Spezza went down, I doubt there were 5 posts of that sentiment.

rooneypoo wrote:To say that your team doesn't hinge on your highest paid player -- the guy who has a $7 mil / yr deal for 7 years, the biggest deal in Sens history -- is either a form of lunacy, or a damning admission about Spezza. Time to think about that one a little more, SD.

If Spezza was doing what he was doing now, and for the last 2+ years, on a $4 mil deal, shorter term, most people wouldn't be on him very much, if at all. I know I wouldn't. The fact is that you can't afford to have 1/8th of your team's salary cap dedicated to a guy whom your team doesn't hinge on. We don't need $7 mil complimentary players.

That's what makes this so interesting. In this system we're playing right now, I'm not 100% sure Spezza actually fits, but he certainly isn't the negative that some people make him out to be. I've been underwhelmed by him before the injury, and now that he's back, he provides the kind of passing and rushing plays that send teams into panic - especially when paired with Alfie, but he's not the kind of player that we would have there if given the choice. That would be a guy with size, speed and scoring consistency, like a Getzlaf, or the hard working, two-way player who plays above his size like McDonald or Sharp, but those guys aren't available for a reason, they're quite hard to come by.

Spezza has the size and skill to be the kind of player Getzlaf is, but from watching him since he's come back, he needs a lot more work and his mindset still isn't where it needs to be. However, I would say that from what I've read and heard the willingness is there. Enter Clouston who can begin to start to break down what he likes and doesn't like out of Spezza to make him the all-round player we all want him to be. Is that Getzlaf? No, but it's good enough.

And that's the only time where 'good enough' on a 7 million dollar player is okay. The most expensive complimentary player in the NHL, but worth it in terms of production and getting the most out of Alfie, Michalek and even Karlsson.

Mind you, if you can pry Sharp out of Chicago, then we have lift off to trade Spezza.

SpezDispenser wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:To say that your team doesn't hinge on your highest paid player -- the guy who has a $7 mil / yr deal for 7 years, the biggest deal in Sens history -- is either a form of lunacy, or a damning admission about Spezza. Time to think about that one a little more, SD.

If Spezza was doing what he was doing now, and for the last 2+ years, on a $4 mil deal, shorter term, most people wouldn't be on him very much, if at all. I know I wouldn't. The fact is that you can't afford to have 1/8th of your team's salary cap dedicated to a guy whom your team doesn't hinge on. We don't need $7 mil complimentary players.

That's what makes this so interesting. In this system we're playing right now, I'm not 100% sure Spezza actually fits, but he certainly isn't the negative that some people make him out to be. I've been underwhelmed by him before the injury, and now that he's back, he provides the kind of passing and rushing plays that send teams into panic - especially when paired with Alfie, but he's not the kind of player that we would have there if given the choice. That would be a guy with size, speed and scoring consistency, like a Getzlaf, or the hard working, two-way player who plays above his size like McDonald or Sharp, but those guys aren't available for a reason, they're quite hard to come by.

Spezza has the size and skill to be the kind of player Getzlaf is, but from watching him since he's come back, he needs a lot more work and his mindset still isn't where it needs to be. However, I would say that from what I've read and heard the willingness is there. Enter Clouston who can begin to start to break down what he likes and doesn't like out of Spezza to make him the all-round player we all want him to be. Is that Getzlaf? No, but it's good enough.

And that's the only time where 'good enough' on a 7 million dollar player is okay. The most expensive complimentary player in the NHL, but worth it in terms of production and getting the most out of Alfie, Michalek and even Karlsson.

Spezza isn't a negative, I'd say. But at $7 mil / 7 years, he's got to be more than than. He's got to be a positive. The fact that we do just fine without him on a consistent basis speaks volumes.

I don't know how you can get any comfort from sentences like "the team doesn't hinge on Spezza" and "he may well be the most expensive complimentary player in the NHL." That's called "damning with faint praise," my friend. Your own defences of Spezza are making the argument to consider moving Spezza all the stronger.

SpezDispenser wrote:Mind you, if you can pry Sharp out of Chicago, then we have lift off to trade Spezza.

Luckily, sources have told me to make up this trade:

To CHI: Volchenkov and Kelly

To OTT: Sharp, Phaneuf and Moss

To CGY: Spezza and Sopel

more to come...

SeawaySensFan wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:Mind you, if you can pry Sharp out of Chicago, then we have lift off to trade Spezza.

Luckily, sources have told me to make up this trade:

To CHI: Volchenkov and Kelly

To OTT: Sharp, Phaneuf and Moss

To CGY: Spezza and Sopel

more to come...

In your dreams, but yes, adding those guys would be ludicrous.

rooneypoo wrote:
Spezza isn't a negative, I'd say. But at $7 mil / 7 years, he's got to be more than than. He's got to be a positive. The fact that we do just fine without him on a consistent basis speaks volumes.

I don't know how you can get any comfort from sentences like "the team doesn't hinge on Spezza" and "he may well be the most expensive complimentary player in the NHL." That's called "damning with faint praise," my friend. Your own defences of Spezza are making the argument to consider moving Spezza all the stronger.

I never said I wasn't open to trading him, just that we could run into problems if we do depending on who we get back.

Present me a list of names that could be acquired for him and then we'll have a better idea of if he can go or not.

Trading Jason Spezza is gonna send us back to the Diddling stone age.

I can't wait to see that list!!!

PKC wrote:Trading Jason Spezza is gonna send us back to the Diddling stone age.

Hey, don't look at me, I'm advocating keeping him - unless we get an offer we can't refuse.

SeawaySensFan wrote:I can't wait to see that list!!!

PKC wrote:Trading Jason Spezza is gonna send us back to the Diddling stone age.

The player even his boosters describe as "not a key cog in the team" and "an expensive complimentary player"? LOL. I think we'll find ways.

rooneypoo wrote:

PKC wrote:Trading Jason Spezza is gonna send us back to the Diddling stone age.

The player even his boosters describe as "not a key cog in the team" and "an expensive complimentary player"? LOL. I think we'll find ways.

Get lost, I'm not a booster of anyone. I want to win, if that means keeping Spezza, then so be it, if it means trading him, then I'm all ears.