Sub-total: $64.0083M Cap: $71.4M Cap Space: $7.39172M
So if you are taking arounf $4M away for Galchenyuk and Tinordi, that leaves us with around $3M to spend on one last forward... sneaking towards a price range we could afford if the market is dropping a little, which the Beleskey and Williams deals seem to suggest might be happening... I'd take the chance on more skill like 1-year deals to guys like Semin or St.Louis... I could see the Habs braintrust preferring others like Ward or Fehr, which wouldn't be all bad either... mostly I would just like to be sure they do spend that money.
Gerry <firstname.lastname@example.org>: Jul 02 05:34AM -0700
Should also make a quick mention of the lesser signings...
They grabbed Joel Hanley and Mark Barberio as more experienced defensemen for the farm team. Barberio basically becomes our #9 guy and first recall option, presumably. He hasn't been able to do much at the NHL level so far, but he has been a star in the AHL before. He's almost good/young enough that we could even possibly lose him on assignment waivers at the start of the year, if any teams run into enough injury trouble in camp.
Oh yes, and they extended Pateryn for two more years after this one at an $800k cap hit.
And they picked up Bud Holloway from Switzerland... he has some notoriety as prospect who was once somewhat well-regarded in the Kings organization, but walked away to Sweden with Oscar Moller after his ELC was up. The Kings had reportedly always tried to lure them back, esp. since they were tearing up the Swedish league for a few years together. Last year he switched to Switzerland, on Guy Boucher's team. Finally he hit 27 and became eligible for free agency, so here he is. Could be a dark horse roster player, or again a superstar for the farm team.
This and the Parenteau buyout, the other re-signings, the Kassian-Prust swap... so far it's all decent meat and potatoes stuff, but it's not like it gives us a clear indication that the team is going to ice a better product overall. If they make one last forward signing with the remaining cap space, I'm not sure that evaluation changes much either.
On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 8:34:41 AM UTC-4, Gerry wrote:
> This and the Parenteau buyout, the other re-signings, the Kassian-Prust swap... so far it's all decent meat and potatoes stuff, but it's not like it gives us a clear indication that the team is going to ice a better product overall. If they make one last forward signing with the remaining cap space, I'm not sure that evaluation changes much either.
> l8r, > Gerry
At least they have avoided going after mid-30s journeyman 3 pairing + Dmen that no one would ever trade for Allen, Weaver etc..
Gerry <email@example.com>: Jul 02 11:50AM -0700
Quite an interesting Day 2... all the GMs are sitting at home waiting for stunned agents to get back to them, and all the agents are like "this isn't how it's supposed to work"... in the past the steam kept on rolling through Day 2 at least. Not a lot of "crazy" out there this year, and looks like the music stopped with a lot of people left standing thinking it must be a technical glitch or something. :)
Works for us, with our limited budget and one slot open, presumably.
And St.Louis isn't taking that slot, at least.
I can't see Semin playing for Therrien.
I could see them taking a Joel Ward or Chris Stewart type. There aren't many others I would look at, and you'd want the best bargain and shortest term possible from anybody. Fehr and Ward are about the only two I'd consider on multi-year deals. Stewart, Tlusty, maybe Bergenheim, Boyes, Glencross, or Mathias if they were cheap enough on a show-me 1-year deal...
There are enough bodies out there that I don't think we should just close up shop completely yet. GMs have to make sure they don't blink! Keep up the cold shoulder approach, everybody wins. Well, not _everybody_, of course.
> There are enough bodies out there that I don't think we should just close up shop completely yet. GMs have to make sure they don't blink! Keep up the cold shoulder approach, everybody wins. Well, not _everybody_, of course.
> l8r, > Gerry
It is the cap working its magic and the weak pool of talent (relatively speaking) this year.
Next year they will be back to spending like drunken sailors if some of the pending UFAs are not locked up during the upcoming season.
Gerry <firstname.lastname@example.org>: Jul 02 12:12PM -0700
It's at least partly that... maybe mostly... but at the same time, I see lots of teams with some cap space, and lots of players who at least have an NHL pulse, and a definite lack of deals so far that have made me think "what were they thinking?!"... some of these guys would have got deals faster than this before, all else in terms of the relative cap and cap space allocations being equal, and some of those deals would have been stupid.
So I think there's an element of restraint in play too.
It helps when teams start to digest the buyouts, and those buyouts aren't compliance ones anymore, and the trade market starts looking grimmer for moving contracts, and for retention ramifications, etc. I think the CBA is "teaching" the restraint too. The system just might be working!
On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 3:12:14 PM UTC-4, Gerry wrote:
> It helps when teams start to digest the buyouts, and those buyouts aren't compliance ones anymore, and the trade market starts looking grimmer for moving contracts, and for retention ramifications, etc. I think the CBA is "teaching" the restraint too. The system just might be working!
> l8r, > Gerry
Or the trade market is getting in the way. A GM like MB may have a plan A = Look to the trade market first to fill in missing pieces. Offers/counter-offers bouncing around waiting to see who flinches first. I`m sure Chicago has received offers for Sharp, but none that fall into the "can't refuse category" so they have chosen to wait it out, rather then lower their demands too quickly. If MB is looking at the trade market, at players who would impact his cap space, if plan B are UFAs he can't move on signings till his trade window ends
I don't know anything about Holloway, but I remember seeing Oscar Moeller as a 16 year old at a tourney in Calgary. I was impressed then with his leadership and poise as well as his play. His Swedish team won the tournament, and he was a big part of it.
I never thought he was the LA-type of player and I was proved right since he didn't stick there. He's more of a Detroit or Minnesota style and would have done better in either of those places or others with more of a lunch-bucket, dependable style of player.
Now the focus needs to be on signing Chucky!
Nyssa, who notices no one has signed Oduya yet and wonders what price he'll eventually get somewhere
> My only worry is where the Habs' braintrust is looking, mentally. It's another player who fits a certain mould, big and (hopefully) physical, not a skill player... feels a little bit like being behind the curve of the modern NHL trend, yet again. Still small potatoes, but still a minor concern.
> l8r, > Gerry
You hit the nail on the head for me. Another DSP. What does this do for us? Its like they're following the Bruins model to win a cup but as the Habs showed in 2014 - speed kills. I'm not really sure about this move.
Mike <email@example.com>: Jul 02 08:59AM -0300
On 15-07-01 03:19 PM, Ed wrote: > I'm not thrilled to see Prust go, Especially for a guy who hasn't shown much consistency or heart. Big shoes to fill.
> There was certainly lots of discussion after Prust had his playoff meltdown, that he would likely be done as a Hab. Was that a factor? Likely never know.
>> er, I didn't tip Rafa to make 2nd week. Check my tips.
> How about this quote from you: "Looking pretty good - very motivated too. If he can keep redlining it > he'll be hard to beat at Wimbledon."
Yes, if he kept that up he woulda been a big fave to win. I c am to the conclusion he wasn't going to play that way & probably go out in 1st week.
One thing I notice about modern players is their complete inability to change their games. I guess that's another drawback of having same conditions everywhere - tough to back yourself & make real changes. Fed can't do it, & the others are even worse.
> He'll just have to 'Dust' himself off and he'll be good as new for the > U.S. Open. LOL!
No reason why Rafa can't win USO if he plays the right way. He's won it the last time he entered, & made last 4 finals.
John Liang <firstname.lastname@example.org>: Jul 02 08:55PM -0700
On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 1:30:50 PM UTC+10, Whisper wrote: > change their games. I guess that's another drawback of having same > conditions everywhere - tough to back yourself & make real changes. Fed > can't do it, & the others are even worse.
And was Pete the only that could do it in the 90s ? Why didn't he win the FO? So it does not appear to you it is simple case that Nadal is reach a stage in his career that he is declining as he gets older ? Same thing happened to all players.
John Liang <email@example.com>: Jul 02 08:28PM -0700
Courty will continue to say that Nadal is within sniffing distance of 17 grand slam wins, there is no way that she will write him off after this year. But deep down it can not be more clearer that there is no way Nadal is going to win 17, even 15 or 16 will be very difficult.
On 3/07/2015 1:28 PM, John Liang wrote: > Courty will continue to say that Nadal is within sniffing distance of 17 grand slam wins, there is no way that she will write him off after this year. But deep down it can not be more clearer that there is no way Nadal is going to win 17, even 15 or 16 will be very difficult.
Maybe. Then again he could win next 3 slams.
Guypers <firstname.lastname@example.org>: Jul 02 08:43PM -0700
On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 11:33:55 PM UTC-4, Whisper wrote: > On 3/07/2015 1:28 PM, John Liang wrote: > > Courty will continue to say that Nadal is within sniffing distance of 17 grand slam wins, there is no way that she will write him off after this year. But deep down it can not be more clearer that there is no way Nadal is going to win 17, even 15 or 16 will be very difficult.
> Maybe. Then again he could win next 3 slams.
Not likely, interesting, Nadal got beat by a player who played mostly serve and volley!
On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 4:40:45 AM UTC-4, The Iceberg wrote:
> > Kei is the most overrated and over-hyped player of the past 5 years. I can't believe anyone touts this guy as a future slam winner. He has absolutely no major weapon: none. Please don't mention his speed-- Chang was far faster and the vastly superior player. Kei is also incessantly injured and his fitness is definitely suspect.
> > I like his attitude on court and he's a lovely guy in person- great to fans, accommodating and seemingly quite modest. But that nasty and filthy piece of work, Kyrgios, will win a slam before Kei gets close to one. I see Kei more as a spoiler. A guy who can take out a top player on any given day, but winning 7 best 3/5 matches is a tall order for a sim, slight player prone to endless injuries.
> no way is the most hyped! that'd be Dimitrov! Court1 still says Nishi is the Greatest chance we have! :)
I have never said that. I said I like his game but three things about him are annoying: A)He has no plan B, B) his injuries seem constant and C) he is not the strongest mentally.
On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 4:48:54 AM UTC-4, The Iceberg wrote:
> WTF!!! How come womyn are allowed a *10 MINUTE* break due to the heat but men aren't? this is disgusting and very very sexist.
I agree, it is stupid. They should allow coaching on the men's side like they do on the women's side at non-slam events as well. We all know coaching from the stands goes on with all players. Boris Becker recently admitted he coaches Djokovic from the stands.
> won the maximum titles/slams amongst them. IOW, his best is better > than the best of all his peers as proven by his H2H against them AND > his titles.
I think this ignores matchup issues, particularly matchup issues where the players are wildly imbalanced from an achievements perspective. Let's take Dustin Brown, for instance. What if Dustin Brown has an advantage over Nadal in particular but not many other players... or maybe Dustin Brown is in Nadal's head... Since he loses to everyone else he can neither rack up the achievements Nadal has nor is he likely to meet him in SF/F.
I believe every player has matchup issues.... unfortunately for Fed it's clear that Nadal is a major matchup issue for him *and* he's also an all-time great. It seems to me you are using the combination of greatness and matchup issue to take BOE from Fed... not sure that's fair though, particularly since you aren't giving it to Nadal outright. If I were to believe in BOE as something objective, I think every era would have to have one.... whatever an era is (that's part of the problem too).
email@example.com: Jul 02 05:08PM -0700
On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 5:13:32 PM UTC-4, Shakes wrote:
> He still won 14 slams. Not bad for someone who gets knocked out of so many slams.
> > "Best" has to be judged against all players, not just a select few. The bigger sample size (all players) is much more reliable indicator.
> Yes and No. Yes because that's what's required to win many slams. No because you cannot just throw away rivalries.
He won 14 because he's the clay GOAT, which is the source of his greatness and all of his records. In terms of BOE he's in the running for 2nd/3rd on HC/grass.
firstname.lastname@example.org: Jul 02 05:10PM -0700
On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 5:20:59 PM UTC-4, Shakes wrote: > On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 1:51:08 PM UTC-7, heyg...@gmail.com wrote: > > When you factor in age, much of Nadal's BOE claims fall off. So he beat up on Fed from 28 on. Big deal. We've seen who has beat up Rafa at 28 on, and it's much worse than what happened to Fed. Results at same age against the same field is much more telling.
> When Nadal beat Fed at Wim in 2008 and AO in 2009, Fed was only 27.
Considering Fed's birthday is August 8, that's not possible. ;-)
He was nearly 28 at W08 and was 28.5 at AO09.
email@example.com: Jul 02 05:14PM -0700
On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 5:48:50 PM UTC-4, Shakes wrote:
> > But had won many slams by then. Perhaps diminution of competitive edge a la Borg?
> Not sure about that. Keep in mind that, till AO 2009, Fed had not beaten Sampras' record nor did he win FO. So I think he was still very motivated as he had targets to achieve. And, unlike Borg, Fed was a late bloomer.
> I consider 2010 as the time when Fed started slipping from his best.
Though Fed's W/L record shows 2008 was when he started to slip, and it wasn't due only to losses to Nadal. Fed's slide has been remarkably gradual, though.
Shakes <firstname.lastname@example.org>: Jul 02 05:15PM -0700
> > When Nadal beat Fed at Wim in 2008 and AO in 2009, Fed was only 27.
> Considering Fed's birthday is August 8, that's not possible. ;-)
> He was nearly 28 at W08 and was 28.5 at AO09.
Fed was born in 1981. So at Wim 08, he was nearly 27 and at AO09, he was 27.5.
email@example.com: Jul 02 05:22PM -0700
On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 8:15:41 PM UTC-4, Shakes wrote:
> > Considering Fed's birthday is August 8, that's not possible. ;-)
> > He was nearly 28 at W08 and was 28.5 at AO09.
> Fed was born in 1981. So at Wim 08, he was nearly 27 and at AO09, he was 27.5.
Yup. Just realized that...though 2008 was when his W/L record began to decline.
I do consider those matches Fed should've won. Really, winning just one of those two matches would have completely altered the debate.
On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 4:57:55 PM UTC-4, Shakes wrote: > Nadal cannot be greater until he at least equals Fed's slam count. Agreed.
> But Nadal's best was better than Fed's, as shown by his slam record against Fed.
> Why can't we take both stats into account ?
I can and I do take both into account but IMO Fed's better slam count, slam distribution, number one stats and consistency and longevity despite being five years younger than Nadal overrides the importance of the h2h UNTIL Nadal can equal Fed's slam count. It is at that point where the h2h would tilt the balance in Nadal's favor. Fed's numbers where it counts most are just too much better at this point.
On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 5:09:24 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
> The FO is like a desert mirage which elevates his stature to undeserved levels, especially when you consider that it's the grinder's surface. It accounts for two-thirds of his slams, so when you remove the "mirage" from the equation he's a minor to mid-range champion. Even minus the PED factor, history will not be kind to Rafa, nor should it be.
Come on Gracchus, don't be heartless. It is never nice to see a great champion sink whether it is temporary or not.
If Nadal wins nothing else, his place in history will be secured. Do you know of many players who have won 14 slams?
John Liang <firstname.lastname@example.org>: Jul 02 07:17PM -0700
On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 12:03:11 PM UTC+10, Scott wrote: > Fed > Murray > Stanimal
There is no big four any more, both Federer and Murray need to win a slam to be considered as Big 3. Djoker and Stan do have the run on the board this year. We may only see Big three at the end of this year.
John Liang <email@example.com>: Jul 02 06:27PM -0700
On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 5:56:06 AM UTC+10, bob wrote:
> no because nobody cares too much anymore about such a tournament. let > it be decided at the slams where everybody brings their A game.
then no excuse for Nadal to miss the final of 8 or 9 HC grand slams during 2003-2009.
John Liang <firstname.lastname@example.org>: Jul 02 06:28PM -0700
On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 5:57:26 AM UTC+10, bob wrote:
> fed/nadal is a very large sample space. 5 matches probably wouldn't > be.
Large sample of their matches were on clay, with 3 matches on grass in favour of Federer and 2 HC slam matches in Federer's 30s.
John Liang <email@example.com>: Jul 02 06:33PM -0700
On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 6:04:41 AM UTC+10, bob wrote:
> >I can point out two instances where I corrected Liang this week alone.
> if you only found 2 things wrong with liang he must be paying you > well.
Paying for someone to agree with you in RST, any firm evidence behind that allegation ?
John Liang <firstname.lastname@example.org>: Jul 02 07:12PM -0700
On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 4:31:44 AM UTC+10, Shakes wrote: > > On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 10:35:41 AM UTC-7, Shakes wrote:
> > Just within the past few days, I've taken issue with John claiming Laver would be too small to deal with modern players and with JD characterizing Nishikori as a hack. I sometimes agree and sometimes disagree with those guys. It doesn't even compare to unvarying rubber-stamp Whisp endorsements from you and bob.
> When it comes to Fed/Nadal/Sampras etc., you guys don't disagree with each other either. I think since these players are discussed the most (along with differences in eras), it appears that way.
The primary thing is we all agree the measure of GOAT is based on number of grand slam wins and the mixes of grand slams. We don't use term such as BOAT, Best in Absolute terms, best at best to make Sampras or even Mac whose record in grand slam is definitely inferior to Federer appear to be better. If Nadal do come up with 18 slam wins I would have no problem accept his position as GOAT until the next great comes along break the record. I don't believe h2h is the primary indicator of great and I also don't believe GOAT or any players are/were unbeatable.