GAME DAY: Ottawa Senators @ Pittsburgh Penguins - 1:00pm ET - FRI. Nov. 26, 2010

I'm all for re-signing Phillips, but if we can trade him at the deadline for anything of value, do it...then we re-sign him after the season.

Big Ev wrote:I'm all for re-signing Phillips, but we can trade him at the deadline for anything of value, do it...then we re-sign him after the season.

Yeah, I'd be interested in pulling the ol' Keith Tkachuck.

SpezDispenser wrote:

hemlock wrote:I don't know if I'd go as long as 4 years. If he is really committed to staying in Ottawa for his family, then I think we might be better served by doing shorter term deals. Ideally, if he's going to be here 4 years, I'd rather it be on 2 two year deals, that way it could be something like 2 x 3 million, then 2 x 2-2.5 million.

The real problem with Phillips is that if his defensive game goes south, he's completely useless to this team on the ice. Alfredsson may tail off offensively, but he'll always find a way to help the team.

I think your right Hem, but I doubt he would take a 2 year, 6 million. Maybe I guess, but I can 100% see him asking for 5+ years. He's young enough to command term and close to 4 million - despite this year.

We all know how well regarded is amongst other players and I assume other GMs, that's gonna translate to a 4 X 4 offer at the least IMO. I think the best we can hope for is a 3 X 3 which is WELL below market value and would entail Phillips leaving 7 million dollars on the table.

I wouldn't leave that money on the table personally, no matter how much I like the team and the city, that's a lot of money and a guaranteed extra year on your contract and that's why I can possibly see him moved at the deadline. We could lock horns with he and his agent and end up seeing him walk for nothing like A-Train. I guess it all depends on where we are in February.

I was simply stating my preference that we not lock him in for longer than 2 years. If his game is on the decline and this season isn't an anomoly, then signing him for 3 years is a mistake, plain and simple. It's the same argument I tried to make with Gonchar at the time (although I agreed he probably wouldn't have signed) that the extra term is killer.

I, for one, don't want a few contracts that are too long in term hampering this team as the youth is starting to round into NHL form. If you have to give Phillips 3.5 to keep the term down, do it. But don't lock into the guy for 3+ years. That could be a real big mistake.

Flo The Action wrote:

hemlock wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

Dash wrote:Sure, maybe @ $2M you keep him, but not at >$3M. He is what he is, and he'd be better off making a lot less to keep the pressure off.

Enough of the loyalty contracts. Fisher is not a $4.5M player. He was paid generously for his character. Do not make the same mistake with Phillips.

I'd still give him a 3 million X 3 or 4 years. I think this might be weighing on him pretty hard. Or not, I'm not even sure anymore. Fisher has been devastating to us @ 4.2 million. One can hope that the 16.5 million invested in Fisher, Phillips, Kovalev and Leclaire will pay off this season...some time. Leclaire is starting, Kovalev was really good for a while and has regressed a little, the other 2 have been a waste of cap space frankly.

I don't know if I'd go as long as 4 years. If he is really committed to staying in Ottawa for his family, then I think we might be better served by doing shorter term deals. Ideally, if he's going to be here 4 years, I'd rather it be on 2 two year deals, that way it could be something like 2 x 3 million, then 2 x 2-2.5 million.

The real problem with Phillips is that if his defensive game goes south, he's completely useless to this team on the ice. Alfredsson may tail off offensively, but he'll always find a way to help the team.

ok people, rality check. phillips's play may have gone down in the last 3 years(one bad, one descent, this year doesn't look too good) but i'll tell you one thing, he's not on this team this year if all we're offering is 2-2.5. someone will give him 4 i'm sure... and i'm sure he's sure. now he might settle for 3 but most likely 3.5. now i'm not saying we should or not, i'm saying BM probably will give him just that. personaly, if the season continues and we're out of the playoffs(or even facing the 8th place) i think phillips, no matter what his play is like, would be our biggest and best trade bait. we're looking for a good forward prospect? phillips can get us that. and there's no reason we can't bring him back next year for 3X3.

I think you should have double checked your post before hitting send. First of all you claim "but i'll tell you one thing, he's not on this team this year if all we're offering is 2-2.5." Newsflash! He's already on this team this year! If you are trying to reference my thought that we ought to sign him to 2 separate 2 year deals, you should look again. I said that we ought to do $3 million for the first two years (meaning next year and the year after), which is very reasonable, if his game is in decline. The 2-2.5 range isn't until 3 years from now, and who knows what he'll be worth then. I'd bet money that his value isn't going up, that's for damn sure.

Biggest and best trade bait no matter what his play is like? And I am the one who needs a reality check?

If he continues to play the way he has been this year, his value by the deadline won't be anywhere near where is it even now. This is of course forgetting the fact that he controls his fate by virtue of his NTC. Any idea of Tkachuk-ing him may very well be moot.

SDH89 wrote:

cash wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

Dash wrote:Sure, maybe @ $2M you keep him, but not at >$3M. He is what he is, and he'd be better off making a lot less to keep the pressure off.

Enough of the loyalty contracts. Fisher is not a $4.5M player. He was paid generously for his character. Do not make the same mistake with Phillips.

I'd still give him a 3 million X 3 or 4 years. I think this might be weighing on him pretty hard. Or not, I'm not even sure anymore. Fisher has been devastating to us @ 4.2 million. One can hope that the 16.5 million invested in Fisher, Phillips, Kovalev and Leclaire will pay off this season...some time. Leclaire is starting, Kovalev was really good for a while and has regressed a little, the other 2 have been a waste of cap space frankly.

*cough*Michalek!

Bang on. Michalek in my mind is truly one of the biggest disappointments thus far. I understand maybe his skating hasn't returned yet after his surgery, but has anyone noticed his atrocious puck handling? It looks like he's handling a live grenade. That contract is going to look worse and worse every year.

You better pray for the yet to be the key word here
Or else we're gonna end up with 2 cheechoos for Heatley

cash wrote:

SDH89 wrote:

cash wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

Dash wrote:Sure, maybe @ $2M you keep him, but not at >$3M. He is what he is, and he'd be better off making a lot less to keep the pressure off.

Enough of the loyalty contracts. Fisher is not a $4.5M player. He was paid generously for his character. Do not make the same mistake with Phillips.

I'd still give him a 3 million X 3 or 4 years. I think this might be weighing on him pretty hard. Or not, I'm not even sure anymore. Fisher has been devastating to us @ 4.2 million. One can hope that the 16.5 million invested in Fisher, Phillips, Kovalev and Leclaire will pay off this season...some time. Leclaire is starting, Kovalev was really good for a while and has regressed a little, the other 2 have been a waste of cap space frankly.

*cough*Michalek!

Bang on. Michalek in my mind is truly one of the biggest disappointments thus far. I understand maybe his skating hasn't returned yet after his surgery, but has anyone noticed his atrocious puck handling? It looks like he's handling a live grenade. That contract is going to look worse and worse every year.

Is that new? Did he really look any different last year? I never watched him in SJ, but I still can't figure out how he put up so many points in SJ...

The guy's game was always relying on his speed and release. He was freaking fast and couldn't be stopped:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW8a9A-e8_k

Look how he used to make Defensemen look like pylons.
Safe to say if his knee doesn't recover, he's a useless top 6 player.

^ that's depressing. The sad thing is that that's who I thought we were getting. Broken Michalek < Super Fast Michalek with Great Hands.

I wanted this win pretty badly...

... so I could name young Jesse Winchester the first star!

marakh wrote:

cash wrote:

SDH89 wrote:

cash wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

Dash wrote:Sure, maybe @ $2M you keep him, but not at >$3M. He is what he is, and he'd be better off making a lot less to keep the pressure off.

Enough of the loyalty contracts. Fisher is not a $4.5M player. He was paid generously for his character. Do not make the same mistake with Phillips.

I'd still give him a 3 million X 3 or 4 years. I think this might be weighing on him pretty hard. Or not, I'm not even sure anymore. Fisher has been devastating to us @ 4.2 million. One can hope that the 16.5 million invested in Fisher, Phillips, Kovalev and Leclaire will pay off this season...some time. Leclaire is starting, Kovalev was really good for a while and has regressed a little, the other 2 have been a waste of cap space frankly.

*cough*Michalek!

Bang on. Michalek in my mind is truly one of the biggest disappointments thus far. I understand maybe his skating hasn't returned yet after his surgery, but has anyone noticed his atrocious puck handling? It looks like he's handling a live grenade. That contract is going to look worse and worse every year.

Is that new? Did he really look any different last year? I never watched him in SJ, but I still can't figure out how he put up so many points in SJ...

The guy's game was always relying on his speed and release. He was freaking fast and couldn't be stopped:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW8a9A-e8_k

Look how he used to make Defensemen look like pylons.
Safe to say if his knee doesn't recover, he's a useless top 6 player.

Wow! I wish we had a player like that

The sad thing is we probably could have gotten Nathan Horton if we were somehow able to get Heatley to go to Florida... or find a team that Heatley would have approved of to have gotten Horton from Florida to us.

I would have tried telling SJ to send Michalek + Cheechoo to Florida for Horton, then Horton for Heatley.

Dash wrote:The sad thing is we probably could have gotten Nathan Horton if we were somehow able to get Heatley to go to Florida... or find a team that Heatley would have approved of to have gotten Horton from Florida to us.

I would have tried telling SJ to send Michalek + Cheechoo to Florida for Horton, then Horton for Heatley.

There's absolutely no point in re-visiting that trade. Murray was an impossible situation: get raped on the one deal, or destroy the entire team for as long as Heatley is around. Don't forget that the next best option was, um, Roszival + Zherdev.

I would have kept Heatley around. If he disliked being in Ottawa so much he would have eventually accepted any deal. He would not have caused distraction - he would have played his way off the team one way or another. His teammates would not have let him be a problem either.

Plain and simple, for reasons still unknown the public, he was unhappy in Ottawa and wanted out.

Dash wrote:I would have kept Heatley around. If he disliked being in Ottawa so much he would have eventually accepted any deal. He would not have caused distraction - he would have played his way off the team one way or another. His teammates would not have let him be a problem either.

Plain and simple, for reasons still unknown the public, he was unhappy in Ottawa and wanted out.

So you would have lost him for nothing, slowly, instead of gaining Michalek and the rental services of Sutton (and that albatross that was Cheechoo's contract, granted)? All while playing $7.5 mil a year for a player who wouldn't have played well for us and you would poisoned the room?

Rock and hard place. BM took the better of two bad options.

We lost Chara for nothing, but imagine if we had kept him instead of Redden. Would we have been lamenting the loss of Wade for cap-space?

What if the Sens had suspended Heatley for conduct detrimental to the business operations of the club or some other fancy phrase their lawyers could have concocted? Or made things so difficult for him that he would fail to report? If they were *not* stuck with that contract then they would have been OK on the ice without him. Not great, but they would have survived.

But it's all water under the bridge now. Except for those whoa re still standing on the rail.

rooneypoo wrote:

Dash wrote:I would have kept Heatley around. If he disliked being in Ottawa so much he would have eventually accepted any deal. He would not have caused distraction - he would have played his way off the team one way or another. His teammates would not have let him be a problem either.

Plain and simple, for reasons still unknown the public, he was unhappy in Ottawa and wanted out.

So you would have lost him for nothing, slowly, instead of gaining Michalek and the rental services of Sutton (and that albatross that was Cheechoo's contract, granted)? All while playing $7.5 mil a year for a player who wouldn't have played well for us and you would poisoned the room?

Rock and hard place. BM took the better of two bad options.

How can people still believe this? We literally got nothing for Heatley as it's looking like Michalek is dead weight (for this season at least).

We chose Clouston over Heatley. Clouston won't be the coach after this year, most likely. Wow.

Big Ev wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

Dash wrote:I would have kept Heatley around. If he disliked being in Ottawa so much he would have eventually accepted any deal. He would not have caused distraction - he would have played his way off the team one way or another. His teammates would not have let him be a problem either.

Plain and simple, for reasons still unknown the public, he was unhappy in Ottawa and wanted out.

So you would have lost him for nothing, slowly, instead of gaining Michalek and the rental services of Sutton (and that albatross that was Cheechoo's contract, granted)? All while playing $7.5 mil a year for a player who wouldn't have played well for us and you would poisoned the room?

Rock and hard place. BM took the better of two bad options.

How can people still believe this? We literally got nothing for Heatley as it's looking like Michalek is dead weight (for this season at least).

We chose Clouston over Heatley. Clouston won't be the coach after this year, most likely. Wow.

You can't let one petulant player determine whether or not the coach stays. Simple as that.

Big Ev wrote:
How can people still believe this? We literally got nothing for Heatley as it's looking like Michalek is dead weight (for this season at least).

We chose Clouston over Heatley. Clouston won't be the coach after this year, most likely. Wow.

Michalek isn't 'nothing', come on Big Ev, I'm sure you would agree that Michalek is a nice player having some terrible luck. He'll be fine.

Big Ev wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

Dash wrote:I would have kept Heatley around. If he disliked being in Ottawa so much he would have eventually accepted any deal. He would not have caused distraction - he would have played his way off the team one way or another. His teammates would not have let him be a problem either.

Plain and simple, for reasons still unknown the public, he was unhappy in Ottawa and wanted out.

So you would have lost him for nothing, slowly, instead of gaining Michalek and the rental services of Sutton (and that albatross that was Cheechoo's contract, granted)? All while playing $7.5 mil a year for a player who wouldn't have played well for us and you would poisoned the room?

Rock and hard place. BM took the better of two bad options.

How can people still believe this? We literally got nothing for Heatley as it's looking like Michalek is dead weight (for this season at least).

We chose Clouston over Heatley. Clouston won't be the coach after this year, most likely. Wow.

I guess you must be tight with Heatley to know the reason(s) he wanted out of Ottawa. Next time you're talking to him tell him I think he is a prick.