Location: Somewhere close to Vancouver., BC Joined: 06.10.2009
Jul 6 @ 10:16 AM ET
Massive overpayment. Should have signed him to a 3 year 5.5-6m deal. Signing players based on potential, when they've done nothing, is a recipe for disaster.
I think you missed the point. Everything is proportional to how the rules of the league currently are. So thats why its comparable to the risky Dipietro contract. You have to restrategize under every CBA. 8 years is the max, and he is correct, if that is the max, then everything falls proportionally under it. 22 year old promising, good budding Dmen should NOT get the league maximum, it sets the wrong precedent for everyone else. Again, you need to work under the confines of the new system of rules. Hamonic is good, but what happens if he doesn't peak? What if he is as good as he's gonna get, or worse, what if he digresses? Look at Del Zotto. Kid was drafted in the 1st round, has had some really good seasons, lead the league in +/- for most of the year 2 seasons ago. But its unclear whether we will really reach his full potential even at this point. Again, its not a knock on how good or bad Hamonic is, its about GM'ing and contracting. If Hamonic digresses, how will they move him with 6-7 years remaining on his contract? I think Healy makes a valid point. RFA's that are in their early 20's do not earn the league max contract length unless they are proven dominant players. At 22, especially as a dman, he is not proven.
I think you missed the point. Everything is proportional to how the rules of the league currently are. So thats why its comparable to the risky Dipietro contract. You have to restrategize under every CBA. 8 years is the max, and he is correct, if that is the max, then everything falls proportionally under it. 22 year old promising, good budding Dmen should NOT get the league maximum, it sets the wrong precedent for everyone else. Again, you need to work under the confines of the new system of rules. Hamonic is good, but what happens if he doesn't peak? What if he is as good as he's gonna get, or worse, what if he digresses? Look at Del Zotto. Kid was drafted in the 1st round, has had some really good seasons, lead the league in +/- for most of the year 2 seasons ago. But its unclear whether we will really reach his full potential even at this point. Again, its not a knock on how good or bad Hamonic is, its about GM'ing and contracting. If Hamonic digresses, how will they move him with 6-7 years remaining on his contract? I think Healy makes a valid point. RFA's that are in their early 20's do not earn the league max contract length unless they are proven dominant players. At 22, especially as a dman, he is not proven. - xcheckmajor
Massive overpayment. Should have signed him to a 3 year 5.5-6m deal. Signing players based on potential, when they've done nothing, is a recipe for disaster. - Scooby_Doo
this is funny. So a 22 y/o physical shut down defenseman playing top pairing against the other team's best lines every game, pk and 2nd unit pp isn't worth signing to a long term deal under 4 mil per that takes him until he's 29, but paying edler 5 mil per at age 27 when he plays on the second pairing and has an inconsistent physical game, makes huge defensive blunders and can score 40 points is much better? Obviously so, since the Canucks are trying to move Edler before he's even played a game under his new contract.
Clearly you didn't watch Hamonic take the body on crosby and malkin in the playoffs, and show more grit, heart and determination than anyone on the canucks.
But maybe you did notice for 3 months that your blogger had Hamonic listed as a target in every trade proposal blog he posted.
Less than 4 mil per year, plays top pairing, big minutes, top competition, contract takes him through 3 years of unrestricted eligibility and he's locked up.
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, AB Joined: 09.05.2008
Jul 6 @ 10:35 AM ET
this is funny. So a 22 y/o physical shut down defenseman playing top pairing against the other team's best lines every game, pk and 2nd unit pp isn't worth signing to a long term deal under 4 mil per that takes him until he's 29, but paying edler 5 mil per at age 27 when he plays on the second pairing and has an inconsistent physical game, makes huge defensive blunders and can score 40 points is much better? Obviously so, since the Canucks are trying to move Edler before he's even played a game under his new contract.
Clearly you didn't watch Hamonic take the body on crosby and malkin in the playoffs, and show more grit, heart and determination than anyone on the canucks.
But maybe you did notice for 3 months that your blogger had Hamonic listed as a target in every trade proposal blog he posted.
Less than 4 mil per year, plays top pairing, big minutes, top competition, contract takes him through 3 years of unrestricted eligibility and he's locked up.
Fantastic deal for us. - Isles_since_6
Great deal this guy is solid and will be for a long time.
Signed,
Everyone that watches Hockey Night In Canada - magmoo
worst broadcaster aside from Milbury. The guy thrives on putting people down, rather than praising anyone. He's got an inferiority complex and/or anger issues.
this is funny. So a 22 y/o physical shut down defenseman playing top pairing against the other team's best lines every game, pk and 2nd unit pp isn't worth signing to a long term deal under 4 mil per that takes him until he's 29, but paying edler 5 mil per at age 27 when he plays on the second pairing and has an inconsistent physical game, makes huge defensive blunders and can score 40 points is much better? Obviously so, since the Canucks are trying to move Edler before he's even played a game under his new contract.
Clearly you didn't watch Hamonic take the body on crosby and malkin in the playoffs, and show more grit, heart and determination than anyone on the canucks.
But maybe you did notice for 3 months that your blogger had Hamonic listed as a target in every trade proposal blog he posted.
Less than 4 mil per year, plays top pairing, big minutes, top competition, contract takes him through 3 years of unrestricted eligibility and he's locked up.
I think you missed the point. Everything is proportional to how the rules of the league currently are. So thats why its comparable to the risky Dipietro contract. You have to restrategize under every CBA. 8 years is the max, and he is correct, if that is the max, then everything falls proportionally under it. 22 year old promising, good budding Dmen should NOT get the league maximum, it sets the wrong precedent for everyone else. Again, you need to work under the confines of the new system of rules. Hamonic is good, but what happens if he doesn't peak? What if he is as good as he's gonna get, or worse, what if he digresses? Look at Del Zotto. Kid was drafted in the 1st round, has had some really good seasons, lead the league in +/- for most of the year 2 seasons ago. But its unclear whether we will really reach his full potential even at this point. Again, its not a knock on how good or bad Hamonic is, its about GM'ing and contracting. If Hamonic digresses, how will they move him with 6-7 years remaining on his contract? I think Healy makes a valid point. RFA's that are in their early 20's do not earn the league max contract length unless they are proven dominant players. At 22, especially as a dman, he is not proven. - xcheckmajor
Wrong giving guys like Clarkson & Clowe long term high money contracts is setting the wrong precedent for everybody else. How is locking up your best young defenseman to a cap friendly hit for the next 7 years a bad thing? If worse case he turns into a 3-4 type defenseman he will still be earning probably less or equal to what other 3-4 type d-man will be making.
I personally think this is a smart move by Snow. He has JT locked up long term at a fantastic contract price and now does the same with is best Dman. Great signing. Healy is an idiot if he doesnt see this.
The contracts given to guys like Streit and the contracts yesterday do more harm to the game then contracts given to guys like Hammonic. - ses111
Yes, I believe that too, but I think its more length than amount. I'm a Ranger fan, so I ask you, does Hamonic deserve the same length contract as McDonagh? Would you classify Hamonic as the same tier of shutdown Dman as McDonagh? I think 30 GM's would say no. The price is okay, but the amount of commitment is that of DiPietros. DP's actual pay is not bad, he's a discount if he wasn't injured all the time. THAT is the problem, the length of contract and the unknown for that duration, you only take that kind of gamble on players that are in the top of the league in their respective positions.
Wrong giving guys like Clarkson & Clowe long term high money contracts is setting the wrong precedent for everybody else. How is locking up your best young defenseman to a cap friendly hit for the next 7 years a bad thing? If worse case he turns into a 3-4 type defenseman he will still be earning probably less or equal to what other 3-4 type d-man will be making. - Vukota
Major Healy is not smart enough to understand what you wrote Vukota. The Clowe contract was just brutal and Healy goes after the Hammonic deal?
Wrong giving guys like Clarkson & Clowe long term high money contracts is setting the wrong precedent for everybody else. How is locking up your best young defenseman to a cap friendly hit for the next 7 years a bad thing? If worse case he turns into a 3-4 type defenseman he will still be earning probably less or equal to what other 3-4 type d-man will be making. - Vukota
Well, Healy made the comparison to DP. Is DP's cap hit not friendly? Sure it is. DP is actually considered a discount among starting goalies. So DP's issue clearly isn't price or cap hit. What is it then? Ahhh, he's hurt all the time, doesn't play, and he's digressed and not dominant anymore. He's unmovable because of this contract length, and in the end, needed to be bought out. Those are the issues long term contracts gamble with. And like I said, you only should take on that gamble if your dealing with a world class talent player.
