Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    306
    vCash
    1500

    Flyers with another idiotic contract

    Amazing, they gave these absurd, long term deals to young players 3 years ago. Then they couldn't wait to get rid of Richards and Carter. Now, they give a moronic 6 year contract to Simmonds. How dumb can you get. You have control over these guys for at least another 3-4 years you tools. Don't give them 6 year contracts when you don't have to. The only player I think we will see this with is McDonagh who is a ton better than Simmonds as a player. Usually Sather goes 2 to 4 years with these young players. There is no reason to give any kid 6 years unless they are a franchise talent and Simmonds is not. I believe McDonagh is close to that.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,065
    vCash
    1500
    I don't mind if any of our rivals, especially the Flyers, give out ridiculous contracts that only shoot themselves in the foot.

    And btw, some of these "tools", as you describe, are running NHL franchises, and while some moves dont make sense you should know better than to judge anything on face value.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Posts
    7,107
    vCash
    1500
    I really didn't mind the Simmonds contract, thought they got him locked up at a reasonable rate. He does everything for them, scores, hits, and fights when needed. I'd give him 4 million for 6 years to be a Ranger, he's only gonna get better IMO. If he went over 5 million I'd have been sceptical but under 4 mill he's worth that.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    306
    vCash
    1500
    I would never give him 4 million at 6 years to be a Ranger. No way. They gave 4 million to Dubinsky over 4 years and he turned into a fat, lazy, slob. Simmonds is 22 and had one good, offensive year. Most I would have offered him was 3 years at 2.7 and he should have been happy to get it.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Battle Creek MI
    Posts
    1,467
    vCash
    1500
    This deal is odd to me. I think they did the right thing by extending him as he's right to keep around. And they're certainly paying for his best years.

    But this seems too much in money and term for a guy that has only been over 20 goals once, and only been over 15 mins a night once. He's really more of a 3rd liner IMO and they're paying him top-6 money.

    If he continues off of last season, they've done well. But that might not happen.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Posts
    7,107
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by averymustgo View Post
    I would never give him 4 million at 6 years to be a Ranger. No way. They gave 4 million to Dubinsky over 4 years and he turned into a fat, lazy, slob. Simmonds is 22 and had one good, offensive year. Most I would have offered him was 3 years at 2.7 and he should have been happy to get it.
    Ya and at the end of three years he's gonna be looking for 5+, so it really makes no difference either way, this way they know what they have to spend on him for the next 6 years and can work their cap numbers around that, and also they don't risk losing him in the process and he's happy, the team's happy, everyone is happy. Simmonds will be playing at a discount by the mid point of his contract. Dubinsky's contract had little to do with how he played, if he made 3 million it woulda been the same thing, I doubt the extra mill and year was the tipping point, anything that made him play the way he did last year probably wouldn't have changed if he was making 3 million. From everything I read about Simmonds he's a great guy to have around, he's committed to staying in shape and doing whatever it takes to get better. I don't think the same thing could be said of Dubinsky really as much as I still think he is more valuable than he was last year, if anything last year should be a wake up call for him, and it'll depend on whether he got the message or not as to whether his contract is a good or bad deal, it wasn't good last year, let's see how the rest of the contract plays out. I think everyone can agree that he's a much better player than he was last year. Everyone complained about Marc Staal's contract when he signed it, but he's playing at a bargain now and will until 2015. I still think Dubinsky earns his contract by the end of it, one bad season doesn't make the whole contract bad.
    Last edited by bsi; 08-18-2012 at 11:36 AM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    306
    vCash
    1500
    You have no idea what he will be looking for at the end of 3 years. What makes you think he will ever have another year like he did last year? You can't give out long term contracts because you THINK a guy ask for more down the line. If that was the case, the Rangers should have given Sauer a 6 year contract before this season. The bottom line is that it was a stupid contract. They gave 6 years at almost 4 million to a guy that had ONE good season. Dumb. That's why they are the Flyers. Dumb.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Posts
    7,107
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by averymustgo View Post
    You have no idea what he will be looking for at the end of 3 years. What makes you think he will ever have another year like he did last year? You can't give out long term contracts because you THINK a guy ask for more down the line. If that was the case, the Rangers should have given Sauer a 6 year contract before this season. The bottom line is that it was a stupid contract. They gave 6 years at almost 4 million to a guy that had ONE good season. Dumb. That's why they are the Flyers. Dumb.
    Well it's a gamble, I know, if it weren't then it would be much easier. What makes you think he'd even entertain the thought of a 2.7 year contract? They didn't just decide to come to that number because it was something they pulled out of nowhere. You haven't understood why these 6 year contracts come about. For one, the player is giving up his opportunity at a big pay day once he's UFA, so the team has to pay a little more for that, and it's obvious the team wants him signed long term. Secondly the team knows what type of player they have, they know him in and out of the dressingroom, so it doesn't matter what makes ME think he'll have a better year than last, they are the ones that know the player and what he's capable off,. I'm sure a whole office full of scouts, coaches, GM's, current players etc have a better grasp of what Simmonds is capable of than you or I, and in their eyes if he were able to get to UFA he'd be commanding a much larger pay day especially the way contracts have gone this offseason. Thirdly teams such as Philly who are close to the cap don't want to have to let a guy like Simmonds go in three years because they don't have space for him, with a 6 year contract for reasonable money they can plan their cap and not have to plan on giving Simmonds more money in three years and can plan for a cup run with Simmonds locked in for the next 6 years. Also, for the record, Simmonds is already a 4 million dollar player by current salary cap comparables, so it's not like you are currently overpaying him anyway, he's just making a little more than he should at his age, but that's only because he's giving up some UFA years for the length of the contract. It's not dumb, it's salaries like these in 4 or 5 years that will allow Philly to add players. The Rangers have the same thing in Staal where he's already a low cap hit for his comparables around the league and it's that type of contract that has allowed us to have cap space for players like Richards and Nash, as if Staal were UFA now he'd be making 6 mill or more, and there'd be a ton of teams willing to give it to him. If I have the option of getting him signed to a 3 year 3 million contract or signing him for an extra three years at an extra million per year I'd take the longer contract any day of the week, it's a no brainer, he'll be looking at over 5 by the time he's UFA and he may just pick up and leave to another team at that point.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Posts
    7,107
    vCash
    1500
    I think we're about to find out why Philly gave SImmonds that 6 year 24 mill deal..sounds like DelZotto is wanting more than the reported 2.5 per that Sather has offered according to Jan Levine.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    306
    vCash
    1500
    As soon as they gave Simmonds an idiotic 6 year deal, they gave Hartnell a 6 year extension. Unbelievable. They just don't get it. Apparently, the concept of 3 to 4 year extensions are lost on the Flyers.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by averymustgo View Post
    As soon as they gave Simmonds an idiotic 6 year deal, they gave Hartnell a 6 year extension. Unbelievable. They just don't get it. Apparently, the concept of 3 to 4 year extensions are lost on the Flyers.
    Crash and burn..

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    1,949
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by averymustgo View Post
    As soon as they gave Simmonds an idiotic 6 year deal, they gave Hartnell a 6 year extension. Unbelievable. They just don't get it. Apparently, the concept of 3 to 4 year extensions are lost on the Flyers.

    Lots of Agents are pissed because they think Hartnell could have gotten way more

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    306
    vCash
    1500
    Of course agents are. They are greedy. The make more the bigger the contracts get. Hartnell and his agent were smart. The entire league knows Hartnell is a mooch off of Giroux. They also know he's a 20-25 goal, 50 point guy if he's not playing with one of the top 7 offensive players in the league. His agent and Hartnell know this. So they took more years at 28.5 million or something like that. The point is the Flyers were stupid. They were better off offering him a 3 year extension at 18 million. You telling me that Hartnell wouldn't have taken that? Of course he would. Point is the moron Flyers don't even try to get guys to sign 2 to 4 year deals. Every deal, "Here! Take 6 to 10 years! Wahoo!" That organization is slowly turning into the Rangers of 8 years ago.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Posts
    7,107
    vCash
    1500
    I have no idea why a team would want to go to UFA again with Scott Hartnell at the age of 33. The Flyers have an obvious plan in the works to win the cup in the next 6 years, that's the window that they appear to be using. If they sign Hartnell to a shorter contract worth more money then what's he worth at the end of that contract? Also, it binds them up for salary now. It doesn't make sense to give him a shorter contract, they got him signed up until he's 36 he's not gonna be over the hill, it's actually the perfect years for them to sign him. If teams are offering Shane Doan 7.5 per for 4 years at his age, they'd give atleast 6.5 to Hartnell if he hit FA. I think it's a smart resigning by Philly, to risk losing him next year would be damaging to their franchise. It's easy to fire numbers around and say they should take that contract, but realistically Hartnell would get more on the open market, he knows it, Philly knows it, his agent knows it but Hartnell wants to remain a Flyer and good on him for being loyal to the team.
    Last edited by bsi; 08-22-2012 at 09:16 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •