The Legend of Sam Bennett

[dino7c]

Find a new thread, this has nothing to do with Sam Bennett

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Find a new thread, this has nothing to do with Sam Bennett

But we don't have a Jankowski thread anymore. It has to go here!

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

The only veto we have heard reported was the owners vetoed a buyout of Neal (thankfully).

IF the owners vetoed three trades that Treliving brought forward, it makes you wonder:

Why would they keep him around if he keeps proposing bad deals?

Or why would he want to stay here if has no latitude?

My guess is that if the owners did veto deals he brought forward, it's because they created future salary obligations for the club. But it just doesn't seem plausible. Treliving would be gone by now if true, one way or the other.

I suspect most owners have a list of players they'd want to be consulted about.

If the deals - multiple at that - were bad, then it's really just an indication of market value.

I think simple loyalty/hope that Monahan will rebound/belief that he is the best option to 'win-now' would be the more likely explanations than $$.

Presumably the idea would be to shed cap...it's hard to think of too many plausible guys that would be seen as a financial concern...Johansen? Tarasenko? Voracek? OEL? Schmaltz?

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I suspect most owners have a list of players they'd want to be consulted about.

If the deals - multiple at that - were bad, then it's really just an indication of market value.

I think simple loyalty/hope that Monahan will rebound/belief that he is the best option to 'win-now' would be the more likely explanations than $$.

Presumably the idea would be to shed cap...it's hard to think of too many plausible guys that would be seen as a financial concern...Johansen? Tarasenko? Voracek? OEL? Schmaltz?

If owners are vetoing trades based on hockey criteria as opposed to $ considerations, then it’s a horribly broken situation.

I really can’t imagine it.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

If owners are vetoing trades based on hockey criteria as opposed to $ considerations, then it’s a horribly broken situation.

I really can’t imagine it.

Based on the rumour we are discussing, do you think Tre presented a deal that cost more real $$, was shot down on that basis, and then presented the same kind of deal twice more?

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Based on the rumour we are discussing, do you think Tre presented a deal that cost more real $$, was shot down on that basis, and then presented the same kind of deal twice more?

No. I don’t believe he presented three deals to his owners and was rejected. And is still employed.

[Kipper_3434]

I bèlieve if 3 trades including Mony were vetoed by ownership it was likely due to salary retention.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Kipper_3434

I bèlieve if 3 trades including Mony were vetoed by ownership it was likely due to salary retention.

It still doesn’t make sense. After the first one Tre should have known the financial limits he was working with.

[the-rasta-masta]

Valid points. The context within which this information was given to me is that Treliving was frustrated about parts of his role and this was an example. The person providing this would be in the know on a personal level, rather than professional, and it could have been exaggerated.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by TheoFleury

Is this your first year as a fan?

Do you think the five year outlook looks good or....

Yep. First year. My crystal ball isn’t working so well either. What’s yours saying? Let me guess, the Flames lose Gaudreau and Tkachuk for nothing and spend the next 10 years finishing as the 9th seeded team in the west. Am I doing it right?

Something intelligent to offer, or are you just going to carry on with the usual?

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by the-rasta-masta

Valid points. The context within which this information was given to me is that Treliving was frustrated about parts of his role and this was an example. The person providing this would be in the know on a personal level, rather than professional, and it could have been exaggerated.

Thanks for sharing and I can appreciate that you can’t verify accuracy. If true, it paints a rather dysfunctional picture.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Thanks for sharing and I can appreciate that you can’t verify accuracy. If true, it paints a rather dysfunctional picture.

Does it though?

The company I work for a GM of a branch still needs to answer to a Regional manager. Unless you are an Owner/GM like Jerry Jones there will be someone that needs to approve these moves. Who knows how much money was involved in the swap?

Trelviing has bought out guys, retained salary on trades, handed out $54M in long term deals after the bubble and committed another $29M over 6 years to another player this summer.

Was one of those deals trading Monahan to the Jackets for 1 goal Josh Andersen and having to go 7x5.5M? I don’t blame owners for saying no to that one even though I think it would be a better fit for the team now it was a risky deal that would have been met with a lot of disdain at the time had it happened.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Does it though?

The company I work for a GM of a branch still needs to answer to a Regional manager. Unless you are an Owner/GM like Jerry Jones there will be someone that needs to approve these moves. Who knows how much money was involved in the swap?

Trelviing has bought out guys, retained salary on trades, handed out $54M in long term deals after the bubble and committed another $29M over 6 years to another player this summer.

Was one of those deals trading Monahan to the Jackets for 1 goal Josh Andersen and having to go 7x5.5M? I don’t blame owners for saying no to that one even though I think it would be a better fit for the team now it was a risky deal that would have been met with a lot of disdain at the time had it happened.

I’m fine with the idea of getting approvals. But if on three occasions ownership has concluded that the trade Treliving wants to make is a bad deal, then you have a problem IMO. Hard to say where the problem lies without knowing the deals.

[powderjunkie]

The cap really limits the financial angle unless a trade was going to involve a buyout (which makes no sense). It's a bit silly to speculate without much of a timeline (though he did say the last year)

The most extreme example is probably Nick Schmaltz - his 7x5.85 deal only paid $3M in each of the first 2 years, so the remaining 5 (including this one) work out to a smidge under $35M in remaining cash.

If cash were much of an issue, we probably wouldn't have seen all of Coleman/Zadorov/Gudbranson/Pitlick (backloaded deal worth $2.2M vs. his 1.75 AAV this year). If he attempted Monny trade that cost real money after all of those then maybe that's where ownership draws the line, but I'm sure budget plans were in place well before then.


I suspect most owners would want to be consulted on any deal involving a $5M+ player with as many years w/ the franchise.

[sureLoss]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1497038143069073408

[AustinL_NHL]

He ####ing killed Sillinger.

Bennett is pound for pound the hardest hitter in the NHL in my opinion.

Absolute TANK

I love that man :')

[Sofa GM]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

https://twitter.com/user/status/1497038143069073408

Sam is a frickin Beauty! Keep that game up….

[transplant99]

That has to be a penalty....but yikes did he lay Sillinger out.

LOL

[Jiri Hrdina]

Rightly given a charging penalty
Unnecessary

[tvp2003]

Pretty dumb play IMO. Your team is down by three goals and you pull your goalie with more than four minutes left. I mean, big hit and I'm assuming it was shoulder to chest, but unless there was something else that happened earlier in the game it seems like a pointless hit when the game is already decided...