Free Agency Day 1 – Final Stretch

by on July 1, 2011 in Free Agency - 754 Comments

Share

It has been a crazy day. As we speak the Calgary Flames are pitching a plan to Brad Richards. Yes, the Calgary Flames are apparently in the race as well. Fitting, considering it has been a day characterized by the vast overpayment of free agents. Be it the free spending Terry Pegula with his 10 year defensemen deals, or with signing Ville Leino to a six year, $27M deal. Or is the definition of crazy perhaps better applied to Florida, a team that – in reaching the cap floor and then some – signed no less than six players in two days to a total sum of 68.6 million dollars, including Thomas Fleischmann on a four year, $18M contract. Remember, that’s the guy who missed nearly 3/4 of the season because of a serious illness that almost cost him his hockey career. How about rivals signing their most hated rival players?

Don’t worry, we have that too. The Flyer signed former Penguin favorites Jaromir Jagr and Maxime Talbot to contracts earlier in the day. Talbot signed a multi year deal (5 years, $9 million) while the ninth leading scorer in NHL history, Jaromir Jagr, signed on for one year/$3.3 million. Crazy enough? Well it’s only getting crazier with the big fish still out there.

While the Rangers and Kings seem to be getting the most mention in the Richards’ sweepstakes at the moment, with the ridiculousness of the money going around the trade route for a better contract might make increasingly more sense. Not only that, it could give the Leafs a distinct cap advantage over some of these other in-conference teams that are sloppily throwing around money today. To a certain extent though, these type of salary figures are something we’re going to have to get used to with the new heights of the cap floor and ceiling.
-
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Print article

  • Nazem.K-savzri
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Cloud09
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Nazem.K-savzri
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Mun

    Exactly. Though I will say this there are certain times and certain players who you need to go crazy for. Now is the time for the Leafs to do that. Burke (according to the Score re:most lucractive contract offer) has done that with Richards. BUT his issue with offer sheets better NOT deter him from Stamkos. Id give him 10 years at $12.4 million and not think twice. I am crazy to say that but based on health (eg Crosby) hes the #1 player in hockey

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Cloud09

    Stamkos is a tricky topic, I would do the 4 first rounders personally. To me having a full career of Stamkos is worth more then 4 prospects who may or may not make the NHL.
    -
    Although I don’t know if I would try an offer-sheet. The salary and term length would have to be very high for it to be out of Tampa’s reach. If you could trade 4 first and a roster player/prospect for the rights it would allow BB to negotiate a more reasonable contract.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Anonymous
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Cloud09
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Mun

    I hope so!

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Mun

    I agree. 10-12 years at the max salary

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Anonymous

    I’ve seen this a lot in various threads. What does (e4) or (e3) mean? Is this some reference to Eklund? i don’t follow him…

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Anonymous
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Anonymous
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Anonymous
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Anonymous
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Mun

    Its Eklunds system of expressing the strength of rumor based on # of sources. E5 is done deal and E1 is one source and everything in between.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • The Eraser
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Anonymous
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Anonymous
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Cloud09

    At what cost though. Kaberle for sure is looking at this and thinking he can cash in on a 5 year term with a salary of 6+. Someone is going to be dumb enough to pay him that. I would only take Kabba back if he came in at 3M for 3 years. Anything else is a no go for me.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Anonymous
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Anonymous

    interesting….

    we could always flip him at the deadline for a 1st rounder or 2…

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Anonymous
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Anonymous
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Anonymous
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  • Anonymous
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)