Canes go door 2 door - Page 2 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Sylvanfan · 08-17-2009, 12:22 AM

Meh, for one year deals, what does it matter. Is it any different than someone paying up now for Bertuzzi and giving him 3 years so he can be a call up AHL guy the next two years? Not really in my opionion. At least Labarbera can go back in the free agent pool next year for someone to get cheaper.

Fact is no free agent system can exist without holes. When we had agents they would screw over bad teams and give the good teams sweetheart deals. In this system it's the two way contracts and big salaries. I think KG once suggested an open bidding thread so that people had an idea what the players were worth, and I would still like to see that one tried. But simply put teams should try and set themselves up so that they're not relying on free agency to fill needs.

cphlblackhawks · 08-17-2009, 05:25 AM

in one baseball league, we had a bid system, then the bottom half of the bids were eliminated and only the top half was allowed to make one last bid to try to acquire the player.

Hanna Sniper · 08-17-2009, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

Meh, for one year deals, what does it matter. Is it any different than someone paying up now for Bertuzzi and giving him 3 years so he can be a call up AHL guy the next two years? Not really in my opionion. At least Labarbera can go back in the free agent pool next year for someone to get cheaper.

Fact is no free agent system can exist without holes. When we had agents they would screw over bad teams and give the good teams sweetheart deals. In this system it's the two way contracts and big salaries. I think KG once suggested an open bidding thread so that people had an idea what the players were worth, and I would still like to see that one tried. But simply put teams should try and set themselves up so that they're not relying on free agency to fill needs.

I fail to see how this is a loophole

I signed a total of 4 UFA, with cap hits of 1.4, 1.2, 2.2 and then this 6M

Seriously, I'm all for playing along with a running joke... but lets be honest. Hedberg signed for 1.2M and Johnson 2.2M... compare that with the rest of the deals that went down. Any team could have had them, the fact that they land to me was because no one bid on them.... i sent lowball offers to almost every player

At the end of the day I still need a goalie for the farm (actually two) now I know Hedberg and Johnson will not fall to the farm through waivers (GM's have told me so). Right now Labarbera has a chance and if he doesn't then I just eat up 6M of cap space of one of my competitors that will be bidding against me in the next batch.

The isn't exploiting a loophole, this is just crying over a meaningless player

I'll say one thing, I still have 18M left and still need another goalie for my farm team

Sylvanfan · 08-17-2009, 12:44 PM

The loop hole thing applies more to a General Manager who gave a guy an expensive multi-year contract and being vocal about your strategy (cough Punk cough). So I apologize, I shouldn't have referenced it in this thread as it doesn't apply to anything done here. I guess my poor communication skills are probably why I've been deemed useless by the recession gods and kicked out of the work force.

When we had agents, no way they would have signed all their goalies to play on the same team....but by the same token, you are winning the bids for these guys so they are getting the best offer fair and square. I was just saying that no free agent system is perfect, and hence....teams who have needs to fill can't always rely on free agency to fill those voids. Is that clear....or does no one understand that either.

Prototype · 08-17-2009, 12:44 PM

(golf clap) Well played, Douglas.

CMPunk · 08-17-2009, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

The loop hole thing applies more to a General Manager who gave a guy an expensive multi-year contract and being vocal about your strategy (cough Punk cough). So I apologize, I shouldn't have referenced it in this thread as it doesn't apply to anything done here. I guess my poor communication skills are probably why I've been deemed useless by the recession gods and kicked out of the work force.

When we had agents, no way they would have signed all their goalies to play on the same team....but by the same token, you are winning the bids for these guys so they are getting the best offer fair and square. I was just saying that no free agent system is perfect, and hence....teams who have needs to fill can't always rely on free agency to fill those voids. Is that clear....or does no one understand that either.

Meh, call me out all you want. You didn't agree with my strategy, I didn't agree with his. We have the cap and we're free to do what we want with it. We are also free to disagree with everyone elses moves. In the end we're the only people that need to be held accountable for our actions.

I would have paid less for Bert if I had know it would have taken less to sign him. As for the 3 year deal...so what? I'm the one that has to deal with it, so why are you so grouchy about it?

Sylvanfan · 08-17-2009, 01:15 PM

Well I think one strategy is plain stupid (your Bertuzzi one). And the other one, is actually something new and a bit intriguing. So when the guy with the stupid strategy questions another one...it makes me GROUCHY!

Actually...I guess it's more pointless than anything. Maybe it's not so bad because you'll force someone else to put a noose around their neck to get a guy down the road that a team could use. So I'll retract the plain stupid comment. But when a 60 guy is in the AHL it will annoy me that I couldn't pay him 1 million and have him on my CPHL team. NHL teams have to pay a financial penalty to plunk an NHL guy in the AHL. CPHL teams really don't, and that will always grate on me. Even though I admit...theres no way to fix it, except for GM's handing out smarter deals.

CMPunk · 08-17-2009, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

Well I think one strategy is plain stupid (your Bertuzzi one). And the other one, is actually something new and a bit intriguing. So when the guy with the stupid strategy questions another one...it makes me GROUCHY!

Actually...I guess it's more pointless than anything. Maybe it's not so bad because you'll force someone else to put a noose around their neck to get a guy down the road that a team could use. So I'll retract the plain stupid comment. But when a 60 guy is in the AHL it will annoy me that I couldn't pay him 1 million and have him on my CPHL team. NHL teams have to pay a financial penalty to plunk an NHL guy in the AHL. CPHL teams really don't, and that will always grate on me. Even though I admit...theres no way to fix it, except for GM's handing out smarter deals.

Well until you can come up with a new way to do UFA's, you're going to have teams make offers like Doug and I did to get the players we need. The difference between what Doug and I did is I want Bert to play for me this year and next and I hope he signs in the NHL this year so he'll have some usable ratings. Doug is signing a player to a huge contract and sending him right to the minors to free up cap space. Labarbera will sit there as an injury replacement and will probably be the best goalie in the AHL this year. I'm sure he also hopes Labarbera will drop in ratings so he can sign him to a more reasonable UFA grid contract next year

JiriHrdina · 08-17-2009, 01:40 PM

Doug's situation is also unique in that he needs a 3 goalie tandem because his #1 is injury plagued.

Sample00 · 08-17-2009, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DFO

Its like a used car lot

hey!
I take exception with that remark!!

CMPunk · 08-17-2009, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Doug's situation is also unique in that he needs a 3 goalie tandem because his #1 is injury plagued.

A good point. I told the Isles GM to over pay for a back up, due to DiPietro's inability to finish warm up without blowing a knee

Sylvanfan · 08-17-2009, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMPunk

Well until you can come up with a new way to do UFA's, you're going to have teams make offers like Doug and I did to get the players we need. The difference between what Doug and I did is I want Bert to play for me this year and next and I hope he signs in the NHL this year so he'll have some usable ratings. Doug is signing a player to a huge contract and sending him right to the minors to free up cap space. Labarbera will sit there as an injury replacement and will probably be the best goalie in the AHL this year. I'm sure he also hopes Labarbera will drop in ratings so he can sign him to a more reasonable UFA grid contract next year

The thing is that I don't have an issue with what Doug has done. I'd actually be more annoyed if he did give Labarbera a grid deal next year. Backup goalies with grid deals annoy me, more than an overpaid one year guy on a two way deal.

I wanna be like Miikka · 08-17-2009, 02:38 PM

The way I see it both GMs took advantage of being able to have high priced guys in the AHL. Spike might exercise that clause in a year or 2 whereas Doug is exercising it right now. Personally I think the 10 goalie idea isn't the best, first off GMs are going to be reluctant to deal with you and second off you are forcing 60ov guys to be in the minors because you are offering them albatrosses for contracts. But with regards to Spike vs. Doug, they both took advantage of the luxury of being able to place an expensive player on your AHL squad, I don't see any reason to be angrier at one vs. the other.

Prototype · 08-17-2009, 02:49 PM

I'm pretty sure, some wise man has warned the CPHL on many occasions that rebuilding through UFA is not the way to go. I don't think he's said it this season, but it's not uncommon for Grant to throw that one out there.

As long as teams have cap room, we'll see deals like both, and I don't blame either for it.

Sylvanfan · 08-17-2009, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I wanna be like Miikka

Personally I think the 10 goalie idea isn't the best, first off GMs are going to be reluctant to deal with you and second off you are forcing 60ov guys to be in the minors because you are offering them albatrosses for contracts.

How have the Canes really done that though? Labarbara is the only guy who has what one could call an expensive contract, and even that is a one year deal that is 2 way for 1 million above his grid number. So in my opinion, that is not an albatross deal, at least no more than a grid deal would have been.

Fact is no one would bat an eye if a GM signed every free agent defenceman and wanted to trade them for forwards. So one guy grabbed the goalies and wants to try and trade them for position guys. Why should teams be reluctant to deal with him? They might want to squeeze him and see how willing he is to carry that many CPHL goalies into the season like you would with a team with 10 defenceman and 9 forwards, but I don't see anything to suggest he's asking unreasonable trade prices for these guys.

I'd be a lot more reluctant to deal with teams who have strong prospect bases and good NHL rosters trying to dump expensive veterans on me for good draft picks rather than dealing with a guy who has a lot of backup goalies and wants to deal one for a 6th defenceman.

I wanna be like Miikka · 08-17-2009, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

How have the Canes really done that though? Labarbara is the only guy who has what one could call an expensive contract, and even that is a one year deal that is 2 way for 1 million above his grid number. So in my opinion, that is not an albatross deal, at least no more than a grid deal would have been.

Fact is no one would bat an eye if a GM signed every free agent defenceman and wanted to trade them for forwards. So one guy grabbed the goalies and wants to try and trade them for position guys. Why should teams be reluctant to deal with him? They might want to squeeze him and see how willing he is to carry that many CPHL goalies into the season like you would with a team with 10 defenceman and 9 forwards, but I don't see anything to suggest he's asking unreasonable trade prices for these guys.

I'd be a lot more reluctant to deal with teams who have strong prospect bases and good NHL rosters trying to dump expensive veterans on me for good draft picks rather than dealing with a guy who has a lot of backup goalies and wants to deal one for a 6th defenceman.

Labarbera has an insane contract, 6 million for a 65OV backup is too much. He likely sits in the minors for all year anyways. Bertuzzi will provide at least 1 year with top 6 ratings at the cphl level after which he will either be waived or stay on the Blues for further years. Spike isnt burying him in the minors, sure he may end up in the minors but I think it is a reasonably smart move, maybe 1 million less would have been better but with the prices we have seen I'm not sure Spike gets him. Spike basically added a top 6 forward for 5 some mill who will contribute on his top 2 lines all year this year and maybe for another 1 or 2 after (if he sucks he is waived, no biggie).

Labarbera on the other hand wasted a 6 million dollar bid. Personally I'd rather toss that at someone who is going to be playing most my games for me like a top 6 forward. While stocking up on backups and trading them is an idea, not that many teams need backups, so I guess we will have to see what type of return Doug can garner.

Sylvanfan · 08-17-2009, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I wanna be like Miikka

Labarbera on the other hand wasted a 6 million dollar bid. Personally I'd rather toss that at someone who is going to be playing most my games for me like a top 6 forward. While stocking up on backups and trading them is an idea, not that many teams need backups, so I guess we will have to see what type of return Doug can garner.

If he gets anything for them, he ends up coming ahead than if he didn't bid on them. Now teams without decent backups who were too cheap to get these guys in the first place have to either accept Dougs price to claim them on waivers, and fit them on their teams, or go talk to him and work out a deal.

Swayze11 · 08-17-2009, 03:33 PM

I personally dont like the idea of gathering all backups and trading them for roster players. The key word is BACKUP which means a guy who will play at MOST every 10 games. The asking price for these BACKUPS is way too high so by trading a 65OVR backup you are not going to get a 65OVR roster player.

I understand the strategy and I would be very happy to see Doug start the season with 6 goalies and a bottom 6 forward lines full of 50-59OVR players but I just do not see how this benefits Carolina. Labarbra is a capable BACKUP who will be in the AHL for the whole year which I personally do not agree with.

I wanna be like Miikka · 08-17-2009, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

If he gets anything for them, he ends up coming ahead than if he didn't bid on them. Now teams without decent backups who were too cheap to get these guys in the first place have to either accept Dougs price to claim them on waivers, and fit them on their teams, or go talk to him and work out a deal.

Depends, would his return be better then say a UFA forward that he could have obtained for 6 mill.

Hanna Sniper · 08-17-2009, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I wanna be like Miikka

Labarbera on the other hand wasted a 6 million dollar bid. Personally I'd rather toss that at someone who is going to be playing most my games for me like a top 6 forward. While stocking up on backups and trading them is an idea, not that many teams need backups, so I guess we will have to see what type of return Doug can garner.

The thing is where I have I tossed huge money at any player this offseason. I've sat in the weeds while the league was throwing huge dollars to hold onto their UFA.. or traded to get someone else's. Once the UFA period started, once again team after team threw high dollars at these guys.

For the most part I sat back and allowed teams to throw their cap away while I avoided foolish overpriced contracts. Who does this hurt in the end... ME, i don't have the depth that other teams do. But I'm not worrying about that because I "hope" to make my cap situation work for me.

The funny thing is, I'm the one person that hasn't approached the UFA period to fill my holes or solve my problems. Labarbera contract is insane but like chad said, is right in line with the grid that every team was handing out but myself. It's obvious to myself and everyone else at one point I'll have to make a trade and move my goalie... Do you really think that teams will be targeting my worst goalie in Valiquette and give up par value for it... right. I have a better chance at moving Anderson (65) before everyone else. Si I guess because I have a couple goalies then I should expect to go into the season with LeClaire (67) Hedberg (73) Valiquette (60ov).

Maybe I too a look ahead and ensured that, if I'm able to make moves, and moved my two better trading assets I still have a goalie depth to compete with LeClaire (67) Labarbera (65) Valiquette (60ov).

all this fuss over Labarbera, and honestly, would anyone have cared about him if he signed with any other team.. if so then I should be getting a bunch of great trade offers... between me and you though, I won't bother checking my inbox waiting for them. I'm just hoping that a top teams goalie gets injured and the cost to me is 3.5M and two roster sports. since I have 18M I'm not worried about it... and any defence i "could" have landed with Labarbera's money i could have landed regardless but i choose not to hand out stupid money on that position and picked one that I have more depth and need for.

At the end of the day, it's a lot easier for me to find a 63ov defenceman in this league then it is to find a 63ov goalie