Daniel Posted June 14, 2012 Author Share Posted June 14, 2012 I'm tempted to write something big about this because it just doesn't make sense. Yes, they have the cap room NOW, but it's a tight squeeze. Then you have to figure that this team has to keep Kopitar, Brown, Parise, Doughty, Richards, Carter, and Quick long-term - Kopitar's at 6.7, Brown is at 3.6 NOW, but he should be paid at least $7M when he goes UFA, Parise will get $7M, Doughty is at $7M, Richards and Carter are at $5M, and Quick will probably settle between 7 and 8M long-term. That's over $40M to 7 players, leaving you with $25-30M to go to the remaining 13. That's difficult to do the way the NHL is shaping up now. If they can make it work, good for them, but I don't see it. They would probably have to get rid of both Brown and Quick when they went UFA. I'd note the Brown trade rumors that were circulating at the trade deadline. Those were reported by pretty reputable sources. So maybe the plan is to keep Parise and trade Brown or let him walk when his contract is up. I agree though, LA doesn't spend irresponsibly and there's no need for them to give anyone a blow-you-out of the water type offer. If there's anything to it, my guess is that it would be a manageable cap hit type offer with the message that this is the best chance for you to win the Cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshall Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 That'd be something. Trade your captain, whom you won a Cup with, and sign the captain of the losing team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Dan 56 Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 That'd be something. Trade your captain, whom you won a Cup with, and sign the captain of the losing team. Brown is a hero there right now. I cant see them just trading him. That'd be like us trading Parise to sign brown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halfsharkalligatorhalfman Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 This may be rewriting of history, but my understanding is those Brown trade rumors were mostly the Bruins trying feverishly to get Brown from the Kings, and the Kings just doing their due diligence and listening. Some Kings fans also think it was just done to light a fire under Brown's ass, so the rumors may have been overblown. Regardless there is absolutely no chance the Kings trade Brown this offseason. Tim Thomas has shown that a lot can change in a year, but they aren't gonna sign Parise under the premise they can trade Brown next year either. Kings also are kind of screwed since they really can't go higher than Doughty or Kopitar's contracts for Parise without causing locker room issues. They will make a pitch, but won't keep up with the rest of the suitors' terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted June 15, 2012 Author Share Posted June 15, 2012 Brown is a hero there right now. I cant see them just trading him. That'd be like us trading Parise to sign brown. Difference is Parise is better than Brown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zubie#8 Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 Difference is Parise is better than Brown. But bigger and cheaper Nah Parise is much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted June 15, 2012 Author Share Posted June 15, 2012 For what it's worth, from Minnesota ABC affilliate: My link I hear the Wild will go as high as a 10-year, $90 million offer (maybe higher) with signing bonuses making the contract front-loaded. Assume wherever Parise signs, he'll have a full no-trade clause. Insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 Insane. It's perfectly sane. Look at their roster. What do they have to lose? What long-term contracts do they have to work around? Nothing, and none. They are a franchise at bottom. 44.5% Fenwick tied last year, worst in the NHL. The thing is, being the hometown hero is great for about half the season, but Parise at that price will be expected to A: score a lot and B: lead the Wild into the playoffs. And the Wild will have to make a lot of additions in free agency and hope and pray to get in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msweet Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 The thing is, being the hometown hero is great for about half the season, but Parise at that price will be expected to A: score a lot and B: lead the Wild into the playoffs. And the Wild will have to make a lot of additions in free agency and hope and pray to get in. Yup, and as I have said, Parise is a complimentary player... not a franchise player Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Dan 56 Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 It's perfectly sane. Look at their roster. What do they have to lose? What long-term contracts do they have to work around? Nothing, and none. They are a franchise at bottom. 44.5% Fenwick tied last year, worst in the NHL. The thing is, being the hometown hero is great for about half the season, but Parise at that price will be expected to A: score a lot and B: lead the Wild into the playoffs. And the Wild will have to make a lot of additions in free agency and hope and pray to get in. Bold is a great point. When you are signing a 10 year deal you need to think about the whole deal, not just the beginning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted June 15, 2012 Author Share Posted June 15, 2012 Yup, and as I have said, Parise is a complimentary player... not a franchise player Complimentary is a little bit of an understatement. A $9 million cap hit when it's expected the cap will decrease after the CBA is a lot to spend on any player whose name is not Crosby or Stamkos. The Wild also lost money despite having near perfect attendance. If the Devils had that sort of attendance, they'd be consistently profitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 Complimentary is a little bit of an understatement. A $9 million cap hit when it's expected the cap will decrease after the CBA is a lot to spend on any player whose name is not Crosby or Stamkos. The Wild also lost money despite having near perfect attendance. If the Devils had that sort of attendance, they'd be consistently profitable. Spending $9M on Parise is way better, at least for the next few years, than spending $4M for an average defenseman (for example). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halfsharkalligatorhalfman Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 (edited) All players in the NHL are complimentary players. Hockey isn't basketball. Crosby is the only guy who is possibly a "franchise" player, and the Penguins were still pretty good without him this year. Edited June 15, 2012 by halfsharkalligatorhalfman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adavid Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 (edited) Hell, I would sign with the Wild for that kinda dough! Edited June 15, 2012 by NCDevsFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 (edited) So two days ago, the Wild owner and GM let it be known publicly through a go-between (Nanne) who has ties to both them AND Zach's family that the Wild won't be outbid on Zach and are preparing a substantial offer. Yesterday, the main beat guy Russo reported it was going to be $8-9 million per year and today we get this report of 10-90 with a NTC that could go even higher. Nope, no tampering here... Edited June 15, 2012 by NJDevs4978 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted June 15, 2012 Author Share Posted June 15, 2012 Spending $9M on Parise is way better, at least for the next few years, than spending $4M for an average defenseman (for example). It being way better for "next few years" is what makes it problematic. If it were four years $40 million, for a team like the Wild that doesn't have to worry about re-signing anyone during that time, it would make sense, or at least couldn't hurt. If they're going to seriously compete for Cup, they'll need other pieces, that eventually they'll have to pay. I'm not totally familiar with the Wild or who they have in the pipeline, but doesn't seem to me that they have a deep enough talent pool that they'll manage to get three or four quality skaters on the cheap during a four year window. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDog2020 Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 So two days ago, the Wild owner and GM let it be known publicly through a go-between (Nanne) who has ties to both them AND Zach's family that the Wild won't be outbid on Zach and are preparing a substantial offer. Yesterday, the main beat guy Russo reported it was going to be $8-9 million per year and today we get this report of 10-90 with a NTC that could go even higher. Nope, no tampering here... Yeah, this is fvcking bullsh!t and it pissing me off. Hopefully Lou's all over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxpower Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 It's not tampering. Tampering is a conversation between the two parties or proof of such, or the premature agreement to a contract. There is no proof a conversation has actually taken place. Not even up to the degree of the Blues and Paul Martin, when Stickland started blabbing like a goof. Crazy as it sounds, that might not be enough to hold off Detriot, if Detriot wants him. Basically, unless he's taking a hometown discount, it ain't gonna work. Can't carry two of those deals at once, especially if we have financial constrictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted June 15, 2012 Author Share Posted June 15, 2012 So two days ago, the Wild owner and GM let it be known publicly through a go-between (Nanne) who has ties to both them AND Zach's family that the Wild won't be outbid on Zach and are preparing a substantial offer. Yesterday, the main beat guy Russo reported it was going to be $8-9 million per year and today we get this report of 10-90 with a NTC that could go even higher. Nope, no tampering or underhanded leaking here... It's not enough for the league to act proactively right now to the point of barring the Wild from signing Zach, which I don't know if the league would be allowed to anyway even if there was a video of a meeting. However, if he does end up signing an offer very similar to what's been rumored, you better believe there will be an investigation. Publicly disclosing, either directly or indirectly, an intended offer to a player still under contract falls under the NHL's bylaws' definition of tampering. What the penalty would be is more difficult to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted June 15, 2012 Author Share Posted June 15, 2012 It's not tampering. Tampering is a conversation between the two parties or proof of such, or the premature agreement to a contract. Not true. The Leafs were fined for Ron Wilson stating to a reporter that the Leafs were interested in making an offer to the Sedins. My link And per my earlier post, the league's bylaws actually cover "public" negotiations, so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 (edited) It's not tampering. Tampering is a conversation between the two parties or proof of such, or the premature agreement to a contract. There is no proof a conversation has actually taken place. Not even up to the degree of the Blues and Paul Martin, when Stickland started blabbing like a goof. Crazy as it sounds, that might not be enough to hold off Detriot, if Detriot wants him. Basically, unless he's taking a hometown discount, it ain't gonna work. Can't carry two of those deals at once, especially if we have financial constrictions. It was tampering when Ron Wilson said the Leafs would 'maybe go after the Sedins' and that involved none of that. He only got a fine, but he had no power to negotiate a contract anyway and that wasn't anywhere near as calculated as this media blitz is. There's no real reason for Nanne to lie about having had a conversation with the Wild owner and GM, and he's clearly connected to both sides - this isn't one of 'us' claiming to have run into Lou at Panera's and hearing that Lou's going to make an 8-56 offer to Suter. Edited June 15, 2012 by NJDevs4978 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxpower Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 It's not enough for the league to act proactively right now to the point of barring the Wild from signing Zach, which I don't know if the league would be allowed to anyway even if there was a video of a meeting. However, if he does end up signing an offer very similar to what's been rumored, you better believe there will be an investigation. Publicly disclosing, either directly or indirectly, an intended offer to a player still under contract falls under the NHL's bylaws' definition of tampering. What the penalty would be is more difficult to say. But a reporter blabbing something doesn't really mean anything. Numbers get thrown around all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 But a reporter blabbing something doesn't really mean anything. Numbers get thrown around all the time. This. No one who works for the team has said anything. Ron Wilson saying something is a lot different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted June 15, 2012 Author Share Posted June 15, 2012 But a reporter blabbing something doesn't really mean anything. Numbers get thrown around all the time. That's why an investigation would be required. Not sure what procedures are in place, but the league would probably depose Wild management under oath, and ask them what they said to Nanne during this supposed meeting, and will ask if they have any knowledge if and how this supposed offer got into the hands of a reporter. The league likely could not get Nanne or the reporter to answer questions, which would make proving charges difficult. Still, if, say Wild management met with Nanne and said "We won't get outbid" with knowledge that this would be repeated and then, directly or indirectly, leaked an offer to the press, that is absolutely tampering. Only proving it is the difficult part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 (edited) This. No one who works for the team has said anything. Ron Wilson saying something is a lot different. That's just it, the Wild owner and GM DID give Nanne details and had him serve as the go-between and leak details because they're not allowed to get in front of a microphone themselves. Unless you think Nanne's pulling this whole story out of his a** when he has a clear motivation to help his buddies and send their message to Zach If this potential loophole in the rule doesn't get stopped, every team will start floating their offers out through an alum of the team or buddy in the media in this fashion and put their name to it without putting their name to it, so to speak (i.e. they talked to owner X and gm Y, who plan to offer free agent Z this deal). It makes a mockery of the exclusive window. If someone like Bruce Driver - not an employee of the team but clearly with connections to the team - had come out and said he talked to Lou and Vanderbeek and they planned to make a major push for Ryan Suter, and then details of said contract started leaking out immediately afterward you'd bet your botom dollar the Nashville people would be ticked off. That's more or less what's going on here. Edited June 15, 2012 by NJDevs4978 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts