Ottawa Senators (present and past) TIDBITS & QUICK HITS!

PTFlea wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:

PTFlea wrote:I actually dont think even melnyk could Diddle up us being good in 3 years if some of these guys pan out the way we hope, it's after that imo.

Or it's this summer with stupid short contacts for chabot and white that turn into a mark stone contract all over again

Well, I think both guys will get some sort of bridge contract.  That's a pretty normal thing.

Dont do it for chabot!  8 years, 10 mil a year.

I'm not opposed to that. And then you're buying up a bunch of his GOOD free agent years.

67s likely to face Quinton Byfield and Sudbury in the second round

tim1_2 wrote:

PTFlea wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:

PTFlea wrote:I actually dont think even melnyk could Diddle up us being good in 3 years if some of these guys pan out the way we hope, it's after that imo.

Or it's this summer with stupid short contacts for chabot and white that turn into a mark stone contract all over again

Well, I think both guys will get some sort of bridge contract.  That's a pretty normal thing.

Dont do it for chabot!  8 years, 10 mil a year.

I'm not opposed to that.  And then you're buying up a bunch of his GOOD free agent years.

Same with white. 5.25 x 8. These are the forward thinking contracts imo.

PTFlea wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:

PTFlea wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:

PTFlea wrote:I actually dont think even melnyk could Diddle up us being good in 3 years if some of these guys pan out the way we hope, it's after that imo.

Or it's this summer with stupid short contacts for chabot and white that turn into a mark stone contract all over again

Well, I think both guys will get some sort of bridge contract.  That's a pretty normal thing.

Dont do it for chabot!  8 years, 10 mil a year.

I'm not opposed to that.  And then you're buying up a bunch of his GOOD free agent years.

Same with white.  5.25 x 8.  These are the forward thinking contracts imo.

I'm not as convinced we need to go 8 years with White at this point...a bridge contract might work well with him, as I'm not sure his production his going to skyrocket, leading to him being much more expensive.

tim1_2 wrote:

PTFlea wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:

PTFlea wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:

PTFlea wrote:I actually dont think even melnyk could Diddle up us being good in 3 years if some of these guys pan out the way we hope, it's after that imo.

Or it's this summer with stupid short contacts for chabot and white that turn into a mark stone contract all over again

Well, I think both guys will get some sort of bridge contract.  That's a pretty normal thing.

Dont do it for chabot!  8 years, 10 mil a year.

I'm not opposed to that.  And then you're buying up a bunch of his GOOD free agent years.

Same with white.  5.25 x 8.  These are the forward thinking contracts imo.

I'm not as convinced we need to go 8 years with White at this point...a bridge contract might work well with him, as I'm not sure his production his going to skyrocket, leading to him being much more expensive.  

You could go either way, I think. It depends on how management views his potential going forward. I think he's got a shot at being a 55-60 point C when all is said and done in 2-3 years - and the market value for a (let's say) 60 point C is probably right there at 5.5-6 million. So you're probably saving a little if you go 8 years, as opposed to a bridge of 2.5 X 3, then 6+ on a long term from there. White's a tougher one than Chabot - but Chabot is the one that will likely balk at 10 mil X 8, I would guess.

PTFlea wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:

PTFlea wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:

PTFlea wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:

PTFlea wrote:I actually dont think even melnyk could Diddle up us being good in 3 years if some of these guys pan out the way we hope, it's after that imo.

Or it's this summer with stupid short contacts for chabot and white that turn into a mark stone contract all over again

Well, I think both guys will get some sort of bridge contract.  That's a pretty normal thing.

Dont do it for chabot!  8 years, 10 mil a year.

I'm not opposed to that.  And then you're buying up a bunch of his GOOD free agent years.

Same with white.  5.25 x 8.  These are the forward thinking contracts imo.

I'm not as convinced we need to go 8 years with White at this point...a bridge contract might work well with him, as I'm not sure his production his going to skyrocket, leading to him being much more expensive.  

You could go either way, I think.  It depends on how management views his potential going forward.  I think he's got a shot at being a 55-60 point C when all is said and done in 2-3 years - and the market value for a (let's say) 60 point C is probably right there at 5.5-6 million.  So you're probably saving a little if you go 8 years, as opposed to a bridge of 2.5 X 3, then 6+ on a long term from there.  White's a tougher one than Chabot - but Chabot is the one that will likely balk at 10 mil X 8, I would guess.

I don’t see a point in a long deal with white. As you state there isn’t likely a lot of savings to be made but if things go bad you have that contract.

I’m also unsure about Chabot at 10 mill after one year of breakout production. If he does it twice I’m not sure his value will go beyond that price point.

Anyone think we might have a shot at getting Todd Mclellan to be our bench boss? Probably out of the budgets range but if the org is serious about teaching the kids right, showing fans cheap is not the order of the day and gaining some respect back it could be an interesting move. Better for him too than the rumoured spiraling kings.

Dreger says Ottawa and Calgary are aggressively pursuing Swedish free agent forward Joakim Nygard. Apparently he’s very fast.

Flo The Action wrote:

PTFlea wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:

PTFlea wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:

PTFlea wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:

PTFlea wrote:I actually dont think even melnyk could Diddle up us being good in 3 years if some of these guys pan out the way we hope, it's after that imo.

Or it's this summer with stupid short contacts for chabot and white that turn into a mark stone contract all over again

Well, I think both guys will get some sort of bridge contract.  That's a pretty normal thing.

Dont do it for chabot!  8 years, 10 mil a year.

I'm not opposed to that.  And then you're buying up a bunch of his GOOD free agent years.

Same with white.  5.25 x 8.  These are the forward thinking contracts imo.

I'm not as convinced we need to go 8 years with White at this point...a bridge contract might work well with him, as I'm not sure his production his going to skyrocket, leading to him being much more expensive.  

You could go either way, I think.  It depends on how management views his potential going forward.  I think he's got a shot at being a 55-60 point C when all is said and done in 2-3 years - and the market value for a (let's say) 60 point C is probably right there at 5.5-6 million.  So you're probably saving a little if you go 8 years, as opposed to a bridge of 2.5 X 3, then 6+ on a long term from there.  White's a tougher one than Chabot - but Chabot is the one that will likely balk at 10 mil X 8, I would guess.

I don’t see a point in a long deal with white. As you state there isn’t likely a lot of savings to be made but if things go bad you have that contract.

I’m also unsure about Chabot at 10 mill after one year of breakout production. If he does it twice I’m not sure his value will go beyond that price point.

That's why you play your hand now though. He's awesome, so you try to lock him up long term now before it becomes mark stone or erik Karlsson all over again.

It's no fluke with chabot

White just scored a beauty. Lock him up!!

Tkachuk is damn good man

He’s shooting way more than I thought he would . 10 shots tonight so far

On pretty sure he tied the record on that shoot in to the goalie's pads. Did he get a shot in the last minute to set a new franchise record?

Tkachuk is a beauty. I purposely tried hating him. Didn’t work.

Lagoon wrote:Tkachuk is a beauty. I purposely tried hating him. Didn’t work.

He's made it very hard for Sens fans to be upset about taking him vs keeping their pick this year. I looked into this and thought it was pretty cool:

Keith Tkachuk
Rookie Season: 17 GP, 3 G, 5 A 8 points. Over 82 games, 14 G, 24 A, 38 points (PPG: 0.46)
Sophomore season: 28 G, 23 A, 51 points

Matthew Tkachuk
Rookie Season: 76 GP, 13 G , 35 A , 48 points (PPG: 0.63)
Sophomore season: 24 G, 25 A, 49 points
Year 3: 76+ points


Brady Tkachuk
Rookie Season: 66 GP, 20 G, 20 A, 40 points (PPG: 0.61)
Adjusted to Matthews's 76 GP, 23 G, 23 A, 46 points

I think any of us would take a Tkachuk on their team. He's producing on pace with Matthew which is fantastic having adjusted to an NHL schedule from an NCAA schedule.

I like where this team is going and I like Crawford. He really is good at line matching and he changes tactics when things are going against Ottawa to counter the other coaches strategy a lot. Very impressed.

PTFlea wrote:I like where this team is going and I like Crawford.  He really is good at line matching and he changes tactics when things are going against Ottawa to counter the other coaches strategy a lot.  Very impressed.

I don’t know how I feel about Crawford. He’s ok but it’s a case of also who could be better out there.
Whoever we hire you can pretty much bet is not going to be there for a full 3 years anyways.
I guess we should focus on a good teacher. Is Crawford that guy? Idk.

Flo The Action wrote:

PTFlea wrote:I like where this team is going and I like Crawford.  He really is good at line matching and he changes tactics when things are going against Ottawa to counter the other coaches strategy a lot.  Very impressed.

I don’t know how I feel about Crawford. He’s ok but it’s a case of also who could be better out there.
Whoever we hire you can pretty much bet is not going to be there for a full 3 years anyways.
I guess we should focus on a good teacher. Is Crawford that guy? Idk.

I dont know, I don't see anything I dont like about Crawford so far