September 12th, 2009, 01:10 PM #41
If San Jose were to waive Marleau and someone were to claim him, the claiming team would be on the hook for the whole salary.
Originally Posted by Slopppydog
If San Jose were to waive Marleau, no one puts in a claim, they send Marleau to the AHL, and then have to put him on re-entry waivers to bring him back up, then San Jose would be on hook for half the salary if someone claimed him on re-entry waivers.
September 12th, 2009, 01:52 PM #42
The Sharks waiving Marleau would be as surprising to me as the Oilers trading Gretzky. It would be awful asset and cap management. Keep him or get him to waive his NTC clause. Waiving him would mean a $2.1M cap hit this year and next and they simply don't need to clear that much space. They just swapped $7.33M for $7.5M and can play the right guy in Cheechoo's spot...he's not a 3rd liner but not good enough to be a 2nd liner.
End shmend...the speculation now is how long until a Frolov for Marleau deal.
Originally Posted by lunchbox
I disagree. Cheechoo SHOULD have been a cornerstone but just isn't. He could have been the next Ricci but he just isn't. I like him ok, but he hasn't developed into the elite 3rd liner he could have. Michalek is immensely talented but again, he just isn't developing into the player you need him to be - and especially not at that salary.
Originally Posted by SnoochieBoochie
But I agree that it's a bad trade for the Sharks - not because of what they gave up but because (just like with Thornton) it's subtraction by addition.
Agreed on the value, but their options were so limited what could they do? Compared to when Pitt traded Jagr to the Caps (for Kris Beech, Michal Sivek and Ross Lupaschuk), the Sens did fantastic.
Originally Posted by Goallum
I think they can easily get 7 guys for $5M and end up with just as many points as last season, maybe more:
Originally Posted by Birdman
Bench: scrub UFA
Greiss/UFA at league minimum
I think that's a deal that makes sense from both sides, although I waffle on the "value" of each player, given their ages and salaries (and salary demands for extensions).
Originally Posted by VCRW
I laid it all out above and I think that's a team that should finish the season with about the same points, assuming they're healthy.
Originally Posted by Dominic Lavoie
September 12th, 2009, 01:58 PM #43
Complete ass-raping by the Sharks, although considering the circumstances, it's not that surprising.
September 12th, 2009, 02:04 PM #44
Heatley's a Shark. Where does that put us?
San Jose was the best in the Pacific before Heatley, now they are even better. If you figure the Sharks and the Ducks #1 and #2 can the Kings beat out Dallas for 3rd in the Pacific?
For the Play-offs, I see the top six #1 SJ, #2 Det, #3 Van, #4 Chi, #5 Cal, #6 Ana. This order can change but I'm pretty sure this will be the top 6. The 2 remaining spots are a fight between LA, Edm, Dal, Stl, Col and Min. Are the Kings better than these 6 teams?
September 12th, 2009, 02:12 PM #45
I don't think we'll have any idea until the season has played out. There have been a bunch of pretty big changes to a lot of teams this off season.
September 12th, 2009, 02:15 PM #46
A team full of malcontents and playoff choke artists never go far into the playoffs....
September 12th, 2009, 02:17 PM #47
I don't know but I'd imagine this thread will be put in the NHL talk forum pretty soon.
September 12th, 2009, 02:20 PM #48
Heatley should make sure he drives Blake to practice.
-Chill out, just a joke.
Last edited by George Parros!!; September 12th, 2009 at 02:31 PM.
September 12th, 2009, 02:23 PM #49
I think that puts the Kings 7th.
Originally Posted by Blaked4
September 12th, 2009, 02:24 PM #50
I don't think anything has changed with Heatley going to the Sharks.