Vic Rattlehead18 Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 I LOVE THIS DEAL. THERE I SAID IT. +1 I wissh everyone would go back to that eating crow thread. Fayne is ou for probably the first month. So I'm not worried to start the season. Then zidlicky is gone next season and I imagine salvador gets traded after the ssecond year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Well it looks like hello to the next Captain of the Devils Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Pro tip: when you talk about trading a contract that's just signed, it's bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellOnICE Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 It's not a good contract, but it's not neccesarily a bad one. It's not taking up too much space, and if a young guy is ready to come in and take their place, Lou will trade Salvador. He doesn't have a NTC, and it's only 3 million bucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 btw 20 players/70 million cap - flat value $3.5 million per position. Sal comes in at slightly less than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 It's not a good contract, but it's not neccesarily a bad one. It's not taking up too much space, and if a young guy is ready to come in and take their place, Lou will trade Salvador. He doesn't have a NTC, and it's only 3 million bucks. And if Salvador gets hurt for half the season and is a minus player like he probably should have been this year? And the cap has gone down in the interim? Don't see a lot of clamor for that. The 35+ aspect will scare away cap teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellOnICE Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 And if Salvador gets hurt for half the season and is a minus player like he probably should have been this year? And the cap has gone down in the interim? Don't see a lot of clamor for that. The 35+ aspect will scare away cap teams. So he gets hurt for the half the season, goes on LTIR and we get the money back. And if pigs hump donkeys, it's all hypothetical. Sal is worth more than Rolston, and we found jokers to take him. 3M a team could look the other way even if the cap is 60M. Floor teams who want leadership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 So he gets hurt for the half the season, goes on LTIR and we get the money back. And if pigs hump donkeys, it's all hypothetical. Sal is worth more than Rolston, and we found jokers to take him. 3M a team could look the other way even if the cap is 60M. Floor teams who want leadership. Yeah, we found jokers to take him - we got a horrible contract back and bought it out. So now what's left of Rolston is on the cap until 2015. Joke's on them! With a lower floor, we won't see teams having to jump over one another with bonuses and taking on bad contracts. I am not convinced this contract will move if the Devils want it to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellOnICE Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Yeah, we found jokers to take him - we got a horrible contract back and bought it out. So now what's left of Rolston is on the cap until 2015. Joke's on them! With a lower floor, we won't see teams having to jump over one another with bonuses and taking on bad contracts. I am not convinced this contract will move if the Devils want it to. We're just going to have to wait and see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Dan 56 Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 And if Salvador gets hurt for half the season and is a minus player like he probably should have been this year? And the cap has gone down in the interim? Don't see a lot of clamor for that. The 35+ aspect will scare away cap teams. When everyone pointed out how good his plus/minus was, you called it a misleading stat. Fact of the matter is, this contract isn't that bad and you had the same argument when he signed for 3 years last time. The 3rd year was necessary to close to deal, and it was probably a trade off for a lack of NTC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 (edited) When everyone pointed out how good his plus/minus was, you called it a misleading stat. Fact of the matter is, this contract isn't that bad and you had the same argument when he signed for 3 years last time. The 3rd year was necessary to close to deal, and it was probably a trade off for a lack of NTC. I think it's a misleading stat. Some dumb NHL GMs don't think it is. He signed for 4 years last time, and that was also horrible. Also how silly is this argument, honestly. So if a guy was 35 and signed a 2 year deal here that was a good value, then at 37 he signed a 4 year deal, that wouldn't be silly? Edited July 4, 2012 by Triumph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Dan 56 Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 I think it's a misleading stat. Some dumb NHL GMs don't think it is. He signed for 4 years last time, and that was also horrible. Also how silly is this argument, honestly. So if a guy was 35 and signed a 2 year deal here that was a good value, then at 37 he signed a 4 year deal, that wouldn't be silly? It wasn't horrible. Everyone saw that he was one of the most consistent defensemen we had during the 3 years he actually played. This contract isn't horrible either. It's a year too long, but it's a very small hit on a $70 million cap. He also has those qualities that don't show up on stat sheets. That's the kind of stuff a team needs to win, especially when that team is about to lose it's captain again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devlman Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 It wasn't horrible. Everyone saw that he was one of the most consistent defensemen we had during the 3 years he actually played. This contract isn't horrible either. It's a year too long, but it's a very small hit on a $70 million cap. He also has those qualities that don't show up on stat sheets. That's the kind of stuff a team needs to win, especially when that team is about to lose it's captain again. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smelly Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 NY Times today at page B12 - great picture of Bryce to go along with the article about his re-signing. Except it's really Elias in the picture. Doh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 It wasn't horrible. Everyone saw that he was one of the most consistent defensemen we had during the 3 years he actually played. This contract isn't horrible either. It's a year too long, but it's a very small hit on a $70 million cap. He also has those qualities that don't show up on stat sheets. That's the kind of stuff a team needs to win, especially when that team is about to lose it's captain again. One of our most consistent defensemen? What is this revisionist history? Dude played on the 3rd pair his first two years here. Then he didn't play at all for a year. Then he played well last year and actually wasn't on the 3rd pair. But he's 36 and to the third pair he shall return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SterioDesign Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Hats off to this guy! seriously. • was put on the backburner cause he was clearly not a priority • knew he was expandable • had interest from about 15 teams • was not even drafted here • signed even before everything was settled elsewhere yet based on Zach's comments "Every kid who’s grown up in Minnesota would love to play for the Wild. That’s the way it is." "im a loyal guy" Well fvck you Zach, Sal proved you wrong TWICE right there. Salvador, i dont always like you but i like you now, THATS LOYALTY ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainRafalski Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 NY Times today at page B12 - great picture of Bryce to go along with the article about his re-signing. Except it's really Elias in the picture. Doh! Well it is the NY Times Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Puddy Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Hats off to this guy! seriously. • was put on the backburner cause he was clearly not a priority • knew he was expandable • had interest from about 15 teams • was not even drafted here • signed even before everything was settled elsewhere yet based on Zach's comments "Every kid who’s grown up in Minnesota would love to play for the Wild. That’s the way it is." "im a loyal guy" Well fvck you Zach, Sal proved you wrong TWICE right there. Salvador, i dont always like you but i like you now, THATS LOYALTY ! What a dumb statement by Zach. What about this one... "every kid who's grown up playing hockey would love to win the Stanley Cup." Good luck with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SterioDesign Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 What a dumb statement by Zach. What about this one... "every kid who's grown up playing hockey would love to win the Stanley Cup." Good luck with that. also "every kids running outside in the rain are wet" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.