Muckler Fired!

[jeffc]

those numbers are all inflated on the rosters.

As for Redden, two years ago he led all defenceman in goals. He has had one off year out of quite a few good ones. He made the olympic team. Don't just look at his stats over one year, look over the past 4-5 and see where he comes up. The timing is right with the new NHL that he be moved if the Sens can get a deal done. Yes, you need to play up to your potential at 6.5M and sometimes a change of scenery can help in that matter. The problem for the Sens is after this year, when he is a UFA. The Sens likely won't pay him 6.5M again but lots of other teams will. If they can work a deal with Edmonton, they should do it as its likely the easiest place for Redden to agree to going. I also heard Vermette's name in the mix this morning as well in that trade.

And of course Redden is going to say he won't waive the clause. What's he gonna say, yes, please trade me? that doesn't sit well with fans.

Like it or not EG, the rumours are not going away.

[3Jack]

I'm sorry, but that is the most oblivious and ignorant comment I've seen in a hockey discussion since the lockout ended. Are you kidding me? Please tell me you're joking. I honestly cannot believe that those words actually came out of somebody's mouth. Money is everything nowadays. 6 million bucks should buy you more than 36 points. No penny should be wasted. Anaheim won because they spent money wisely. 6 million dollars a piece for the top 2 D-men in the league is a fantastic deal. 6 million for a middle of the road D-man? eh, not so much.

You're right that nobody held a gun to Mucklers head....but he's gone now, and hopefully Murray will make up for his 6 million dollar brain-fart.

I'm not joking, no. Thank you for your kind words. Players are paid on what they have done in the past, and not what they may do for you in the future. You have a big year or two, and you write your ticket. Jeffc mentioned that Redden lead d-men in goals, then cashed in on the big contract. If you had a crystal ball, certainly you'd not have paid him 6 mill, but none of us have that foresight.

[3Jack]

You're absolutely right! He's worth every penny. I must have missed the part about how being on the ice for so many goals and giving the puck away on a regular basis makes a team better...

Your sarcasim is unappreciated.

[jeffc]

[QUOTE=EdmontonGolfer;189592]http://www.tsn.ca/fantasy_news/colum...len/?ID=205684

If you read that, that seems to be more accurate on the Oilers front. There's no mention of Redden anywhere. They would like to move Lupol though. He's not worth the 2.5 Million he's being paid.
QUOTE]

No mention of Redden? right, because that article was written almost 2 months ago.

[Colby]

This article is from today.

I would hate to lose Vermette...

http://www.ottawasun.com/Sports/Sena...80616-sun.html

[Indio]

This article is from today.

I would hate to lose Vermette...

http://www.ottawasun.com/Sports/Sena...80616-sun.html

I have heard that this is what killed the Roberts trade, Martin wanted Vermette and Muckler wouldn't agree to it.

It would be a shame to lose him..... as for Redden, yup he moves the puck very well and sets up great plays, but he is a defensive liability and I would not be unhappy to see him traded to Edmonton (or anywhere else for that matter).

[Txxxxxxx]

I have heard that this is what killed the Roberts trade, Martin wanted Vermette and Muckler wouldn't agree to it.

It would be a shame to lose him..... as for Redden, yup he moves the puck very well and sets up great plays, but he is a defensive liability and I would not be unhappy to see him traded to Edmonton (or anywhere else for that matter).

but he is a defensive liability

Thank you for being one of the sane people in this thread. That's EXACTLY what Edmonton does NOT need. They already let their defensive liability go to NYI last year. I don't see how signing Redden would make any sense for the money's he's asking.

[Txxxxxxx]

Your sarcasim is unappreciated.

Grow a thicker skin buddy! This is the Internet and I make a VERY valid point. It's not like the Sens lost all 11 games when Redden was out of their lineup last season. There are about 20 other defensemen in the league who make far less money than Redden that I'd rather have.

[Txxxxxxx]

[quote=jeffc;189775]

http://www.tsn.ca/fantasy_news/colum...len/?ID=205684

If you read that, that seems to be more accurate on the Oilers front. There's no mention of Redden anywhere. They would like to move Lupol though. He's not worth the 2.5 Million he's being paid.
QUOTE]

No mention of Redden? right, because that article was written almost 2 months ago.

Two months old or not, it's what the Oilers REALISTICALLY are looking at.

Think about it...Our highest paid player is our goalie who carried us to the Cup Final two years ago. Then Hemsky is at $3.5 million. When was the last time the Oilers had a player who they paid $6.5 million a season? We do not have the market the Senators or the Rangers have for that matter. The arena here holds 16,500 and the tickets are cheaper than in Ottawa. Do you really think it would be a smart move to sign a player who's making that kind of money when you're trying to rebuild your team? They only have the budget to do that as a rent-a-player as I said before where they are not responsible for the entirety of the players contract.

If Lowe signed Redden for $6.5 million, the only thing he'd be rebuilding is his pathway out of the Oilers organization once new ownership takes over. Not to mention, I'm sure Redden's agent won't have him sign on the dotted line until that $6.5 million is inflated now that he made it to the Final.

There's also ABSOLUTELY no way the Oilers trade Jason Smith, the team captain, who's led the team for so long. Do you think that would actually happen a year after they let Ryan Smith go? How do you think that would bode for attendance? LOL!

There are rumours in the NHL all the time. Don't believe everything you read. The paper says they have been talking, but it doesn't mean anything is going to happen. I'm sure Lowe has "talked" to almost every team in the NHL at this point of time. It's all part of this time of the year.

[3Jack]

Grow a thicker skin buddy! This is the Internet and I make a VERY valid point. It's not like the Sens lost all 11 games when Redden was out of their lineup last season. There are about 20 other defensemen in the league who make far less money than Redden that I'd rather have.

I don't mind it when you disagree with me, but there is no need to personally berate another for his opinion. Figure out how plus-minus works yet?

[Txxxxxxx]

I don't mind it when you disagree with me, but there is no need to personally berate another for his opinion. Figure out how plus-minus works yet?

If I'm saracastic, that's not personally berating you. It means I think that it's funny how such a defensive liability would be considered to make a team better. Figure out how the salary cap works yet?

[3Jack]

Ok. You're right, and I'm wrong. Happy?

[Txxxxxxx]

Ok. You're right, and I'm wrong. Happy?

No. I'm not trying to get you to admit you're wrong because you're entitled to your opinion. It would be gratifying to know that you agree that Redden is not worth the money he's being paid.

[jonf]

I'm not joking, no. Thank you for your kind words. Players are paid on what they have done in the past, and not what they may do for you in the future. You have a big year or two, and you write your ticket. Jeffc mentioned that Redden lead d-men in goals, then cashed in on the big contract. If you had a crystal ball, certainly you'd not have paid him 6 mill, but none of us have that foresight.

Well, seeing as we're talking about changes that need to be made. Redden is getting paid 6 million a year, and that is excessive. So, something clearly needs to be done. That doesn't mean that it was excessive at the time of the signing, but you have to be willing to make changes when things aren't working. 6 million dollars for 36 points and a thousand giveaways is bad value, therefore, change is necessary. You cannot have 6 million idle dollars in the new NHL.

[3Jack]

Well, seeing as we're talking about changes that need to be made. Redden is getting paid 6 million a year, and that is excessive. So, something clearly needs to be done. That doesn't mean that it was excessive at the time of the signing, but you have to be willing to make changes when things aren't working. 6 million dollars for 36 points and a thousand giveaways is bad value, therefore, change is necessary. You cannot have 6 million idle dollars in the new NHL.

It's excessive in relation to the year he just had, yes. Not excessive in relation to the year he had the season before last though.

I think I mentioned earlier that players are paid based on what they have done, not what they may do in the future. Therefore, it stands to reason that Ottawa would offer him the contract they did after the year he had the season before last.

We don't know what kind of year Redden will have next year. Could be sub-par as it was this year, or it could be more like the season prior.

We all know that Redden was playing with a groin injury this year, that he had from early on in training camp. This isn't an excuse, but it is reality. It was obvious that he had great difficulty pivoting, turning to go with an on-rushing forward... there were many times where he couldn't force the forward wide and angle him off.

Redden is not a physical defenseman, but has always relied on his mobility to get to the puck on dump-ins and this in turn, has afforded him the time and space to make that first pass for which he has been praised for in the past. Hampered by the groin injury however, he wasn't the same player. He couldn't turn and go as effectively as he should be able to, and therefore, his game wasn't nearly as effective as it should be.

He's never going to be overtly physical - there just aren't that many Pronger's out there. He is more of a Niedermayer type, but no, not nearly on the same level - Niedermayer is a superior skater. But certainly he's closer to a Niedermayer type than he is a Pronger.

There are deficiencies in Redden's game to be sure, but I think those deficiencies are overblown to a large degree - he's the kind of player that is easy to have a hate on for because he A) gets lots of ice time, B) had a good year from which he derived an excellent pay raise, and C) did not follow up a good year with better one.

So, in a way I am agreeing with both jonf and edmontongolfer here (jaysus I must have had a good sleep or something)...

[Txxxxxxx]

It's excessive in relation to the year he just had, yes. Not excessive in relation to the year he had the season before last though.

I think I mentioned earlier that players are paid based on what they have done, not what they may do in the future. Therefore, it stands to reason that Ottawa would offer him the contract they did after the year he had the season before last.

We don't know what kind of year Redden will have next year. Could be sub-par as it was this year, or it could be more like the season prior.

We all know that Redden was playing with a groin injury this year, that he had from early on in training camp. This isn't an excuse, but it is reality. It was obvious that he had great difficulty pivoting, turning to go with an on-rushing forward... there were many times where he couldn't force the forward wide and angle him off.

Redden is not a physical defenseman, but has always relied on his mobility to get to the puck on dump-ins and this in turn, has afforded him the time and space to make that first pass for which he has been praised for in the past. Hampered by the groin injury however, he wasn't the same player. He couldn't turn and go as effectively as he should be able to, and therefore, his game wasn't nearly as effective as it should be.

He's never going to be overtly physical - there just aren't that many Pronger's out there. He is more of a Niedermayer type, but no, not nearly on the same level - Niedermayer is a superior skater. But certainly he's closer to a Niedermayer type than he is a Pronger.

There are deficiencies in Redden's game to be sure, but I think those deficiencies are overblown to a large degree - he's the kind of player that is easy to have a hate on for because he A) gets lots of ice time, B) had a good year from which he derived an excellent pay raise, and C) did not follow up a good year with better one.

So, in a way I am agreeing with both jonf and edmontongolfer here (jaysus I must have had a good sleep or something)...

You make very good points, but the biggest issue even throughout his "good" years has still been coughing up the puck. He's even done it on an International level. I just think the Sens jumped the gun when they offered him the money they did. They didn't look at the big picture as much as I think they should have. Now I think they have someone in there that probably realizes they can't afford to spend that kind of money on a player who's going to be throwing the puck away and not step up in the Finals when he needs to.

[spackler]

Well, the good thing about the Redden contract is that it was only for 2 years. Even if he sticks around and stinks it up again next year, it's not like the Sens are locked in for 15 years like with Dipietro. I doubt Redden can play any worse than he did last year, and I think the injury had a lot to do with it. I don't know if he's a $6.5M player even at the top of his game, but I'm sure he'll earn more of his salary next year, wherever he is.

[3Jack]

Thanks EG, I appreciate that.

I think that Redden coughing up the puck on a more frequent basis than his comparables is a fashionable preception than it reality. Redden is the pretty boy that all the women love, and that every manly man loves to hate.

[mcnorth]

I'm not joking, no. Thank you for your kind words. Players are paid on what they have done in the past, and not what they may do for you in the future. You have a big year or two, and you write your ticket. Jeffc mentioned that Redden lead d-men in goals, then cashed in on the big contract. If you had a crystal ball, certainly you'd not have paid him 6 mill, but none of us have that foresight.

Is that why rookies are free?

Or does it explain why a first round draft pick gets significantly more than lower round draft picks?

Some players are paid based on past production but quite often people are valued by what a team hopes to get in the future.

I'm just being snarky.

[mcnorth]

Well, the good thing about the Redden contract is that it was only for 2 years. Even if he sticks around and stinks it up again next year, it's not like the Sens are locked in for 15 years like with Dipietro. I doubt Redden can play any worse than he did last year, and I think the injury had a lot to do with it. I don't know if he's a $6.5M player even at the top of his game, but I'm sure he'll earn more of his salary next year, wherever he is.

I think there were some serious communication miscues with Meszaros, too. After a lot of those goals those two were looking at each other wondering what the hell went wrong. Seriously, I think they have a hard time understanding each other. Hopefully they'll grow more comfortable after another season together.

[3Jack]

Is that why rookies are free?

Or does it explain why a first round draft pick gets significantly more than lower round draft picks?

Some players are paid based on past production but quite often people are valued by what a team hopes to get in the future.

I'm just being snarky.

No worries, but I think the explaination correlates well to my previous assertation that players get paid for what they've done in the past... first round picks are paid more than second round picks, and early first round picks are paid more than latter first round picks... etc etc...

So, the first round pics and those chosen in ascending order are still being paid for what they've done in the past... ie, leading their league in scoring, being a high draft pick, etc...