Location: I wouldn't even trade [Marner] for McDavid -- UsernameUnknown Joined: 02.19.2009
Jul 4 @ 7:33 PM ET
Isn't it funny how people's minds were totally blown away by the term of the DiPietro deal, and short years later now deals that long are practically the norm for high end players.
(I realize DiPietro wasn't and isn't a star like most of the guys who signed these deals, of course.)
Anyone else wonder if these deals are really risky, even for elite players like Suter and Parise? A lot can change in 13 years. Look at Luongo and Nash. They're hard to trade. I'm glad we've stayed away from some of these deals that take a guy to 40. Will be interesting to see, some of these debates will take another decade to determine. - Zezel
I just think it's mental that these guys are in Crosby territory. Suter, I don't know man: very good D-man, but to get superstar, generational talent kind of dollars? Kind of bat-poop crazy if you ask me.
Isn't it funny how people's minds were totally blown away by the term of the DiPietro deal, and short years later now deals that long are practically the norm for high end players.
(I realize DiPietro wasn't and isn't a star like most of the guys who signed these deals, of course.)
Anyone else wonder if these deals are really risky, even for elite players like Suter and Parise? A lot can change in 13 years. Look at Luongo and Nash. They're hard to trade. I'm glad we've stayed away from some of these deals that take a guy to 40. Will be interesting to see, some of these debates will take another decade to determine. - Zezel
and apart from this, these deals are mortgaging younger players' future contracts.. the cap cannot go up, and since there is a total maximum league cap hit (max team hit x 30), the more and the longer the contracts (with high caphits), there will consequently be less cap space left for the rest of the players... so basically these deals are screwing up the 2nd and 3rd contract deals 7 to 10 years from now.. this will have to be addressed in the new CBA
Location: MATTHEW 20:16 "So the last will be first, and the first will be last.", ON Joined: 10.25.2011
Jul 4 @ 7:34 PM ET
I just think it's mental that these guys are in Crosby territory. Suter, I don't know man: very good D-man, but to get superstar, generational talent kind of dollars? Kind of bat-poop crazy if you ask me. - gravyface
Very crazy, and its not exactly uncommon for a dman to play differently in a new home.
Location: God Leafs Satan The Oneness, ON Joined: 02.28.2011
Jul 4 @ 7:39 PM ET
I think we see the ramifactions of long contracts with Nash and Luongo...even though the player is still playing at an elite level, he can either just be unhappy about anything about the situation, or things just so happen the team wants to play someone else in that spot, now you have to trade those cap hit dollars and real cash still owed to some team, that might be hard to do and get any hockey assets back.
Location: I wouldn't even trade [Marner] for McDavid -- UsernameUnknown Joined: 02.19.2009
Jul 4 @ 7:40 PM ET
and apart from this, these deals are mortgaging younger players' future contracts.. the cap cannot go up, and since there is a total maximum league cap hit (max team hit x 30), the more and the longer the contracts (with high caphits), there will consequently be less cap space left for the rest of the players... so basically these deals are screwing up the 2nd and 3rd contract deals 7 to 10 years from now.. this will have to be addressed in the new CBA - MaximusAurelius
I think the wild west contracts like we're seeing today are going to be dealt with in the new CBA: either the front-loading won't be legal so that the crazy term doesn't make sense, or they limit the number of years on the contract to 7 perhaps.
Burke/Poulin both did say that the trade market has really picked up because of the UFA drought: teams want to get better outside of the draft? Gotta trade, UFA guarantees nothing but extreme overpayment.
Dream over, that was fun, back to reality - gojets
I wouldn't trade that for Nash...mainly because I would just make the 2013 1st a completely untouchable, unmoveable assest...just cuz, the Leafs keep finishing low
Location: I wouldn't even trade [Marner] for McDavid -- UsernameUnknown Joined: 02.19.2009
Jul 4 @ 7:48 PM ET
I wouldn't trade that for Nash...mainly because I would just make the 2013 1st a completely untouchable, unmoveable assest...just cuz, the Leafs keep finishing low - Zezel
And we already have a RW who can score. If we're moving major assets, we need a center.
I'm wondering if we can pry Halak from St. Louis. That to me makes more sense than Luongo: decent contract, young, proven in playoffs, gives us a solid 1A/1B tandem.
I wouldn't trade that for Nash...mainly because I would just make the 2013 1st a completely untouchable, unmoveable assest...just cuz, the Leafs keep finishing low - Zezel
Not with that line-up. Playoffs for sure. Providing you get the others. It's a pipe dream nontheless. That would be the deal that might get Nash though. Having Nash, Lupul, and JVR as your wingers would be unreal.
Location: God Leafs Satan The Oneness, ON Joined: 02.28.2011
Jul 4 @ 8:03 PM ET
Not with that line-up. Playoffs for sure. Providing you get the others. It's a pipe dream nontheless. That would be the deal that might get Nash though. Having Nash, Lupul, and JVR as your wingers would be unreal. - gojets
It would be indeed. I'd just be very hesitant to trade a first until the Leafs have at least finished top 16 a couple of times. After the sustained skids of the last few years I couldn't make the bet. If we had that lineup and Luongo, Lupul and Kessel get hurt and a couple of guys just plain disappoint, we could still finish with a lottery pick
Location: I'm excited to see that Joined: 08.28.2010
Jul 4 @ 8:05 PM ET
Not with that line-up. Playoffs for sure. Providing you get the others. It's a pipe dream nontheless. That would be the deal that might get Nash though. Having Nash, Lupul, and JVR as your wingers would be unreal. - gojets
