Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes

IceFrog999

Full Member
  • Content Count

    5,898
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by IceFrog999

  1. And his defensive play isn't poor enough to disregard the 16 goals he scored. Since the majority of his goals were on the powerplay, which don't count for the +/-, there has to be a reason why his +/- was so high. It indicates his defensive play is far better than you're giving it credit for.
  2. The big picture is, he's earned the right to a big payday. He can't head to Russia if he ever wants to play in the NHL again (which, if his statements from last season are true, he does). So that option's completely out the window. His only option is to take JR's offer. However, if he accepts to play for that offer, how much do you believe he'll get as a UFA? GMs typically don't like to go too high over a player's previous salary when making an offer. So if he accepts playing for a million this year, and plays just as well as he did last year, when he hits the UFA, the offers he'll receive will be far less than what they would have been if he played for say...1.75 this upcoming season.
  3. The difference is, the value that JJ had offsets the salary they would have taken on by taking Turnover. In this case, we don't have anyone that we would be willing to give up that would offset the fact they would have to take Kaberle. And yes, JR would lowball Babs, because this whole thing is about him holding a grudge over the Russia thing. No reasonable GM would offer a 25-year old defenseman who just scored 16 goals for you last season the same amount that he was making before.
  4. I think everyone makes too much of the whole "Babchuk doesn't hit" thing. News flash, half our defense doesn't hit. Doesn't make them any less effective in playing defense. Physicality is nice to have, but it's not a necessary tool to be a defenseman. And more importantly, with Babchuk's "speed", do you really want him risking his positioning to go for a hit? He's got a big frame, which he uses to block shots, not hit. If we lose Babchuk and Seidenberg, we lose two really good shotblockers from our team. Between the two of them, they blocked 275 shots last year. Which means 275 more shots that reach Ward, which given Ward's SV% (and assuming my math is correct) is an additional 23 goals against. Not something we need to strive for, yeah?
  5. If he could find some consistency, yeah, I think he could become one. Since all the Top 4 defensemen in FA have dried up, and since we already own his rights, I see no reason why we shouldn't bring him back.
  6. Ugh, I'm looking at the defense now, and we could be in trouble. Pitkanen Gleason Corvo Alright, good so far... Kaberle Wallin Conboy Carson Rodney McBain Oh boy. We need to either retain Babchuk or make a move for another Top 4 defenseman, because we're in trouble if we have any of the above in that Top 4.
  7. Maybe I've missed something, but has anyone heard anything about Ruutu? Last I heard, we offered him the QO, but nothing's come of it since then. And if I remember from last season, LaRose and Ruutu have the same agent. Could that be a factor?
  8. Just for clarity's sake, it was Seidenberg's first playoff run, but was not his first playoff experience. He played a couple games for the Flyers as a callup during the playoffs in 03-04. The following year, he went deep into the AHL playoffs. And I would hardly call Seidenberg's performance in the playoffs a step above Babchuk's. His play warranted a healthy scratch as well, if I remember correctly. I don't follow your logic. If Babchuk was playing in the Top 4 with Pitkanen for over half the season, don't you think he would have faced more than just the checking lines? The top two defensive pairings are typically used against an opponent's top two lines, or their scoring lines. The 3rd defensive pairing is then used to handle the opponent's checking line. You can't write off his +/- as a result of playing against the checking line if he rarely played against that line.
  9. The only "blip" is see is the -2 against Boston and the -3 against Ottawa around mid January. Of course, those were part of a 6-game losing streak, so I doubt the entire team was playing well during that stretch. If we can write off his production as "The whole team playing well", then we can write off parts of his bad play as "The whole team playing poorly". And again, this was Babchuk's first playoff run. No one on defense looked great during the playoffs, but I'd be more concerned about players who have deep playoff experience and still looked like it was their first time *coughCorvocough*.
  10. On the flip side, LaRose may have asked for a reasonable contract, something like 6 million over 3 years, weighted towards the backend (1.75, 2, 2.25), and JR countered with 3.6 over 3 years (1.2 per year)
  11. Babs's "hot streak" lasted from late December until the end of the season. That's quite a long time for it to be considered a "hot streak". And you can't compare the beginning of the season to the end of it. First of all, Lavi was coaching, and he certainly wasn't as willing to give Babchuk a chance as much as Maurice was. Babchuk also spent the entire time before this "hot streak" on the 3rd pairing, when his partner was Melichar. Because clearly, when you've got a player who's weakness is his speed, you want to emphasizes that weakness by pairing him with a pylon. Not surprisingly, the "hot streak" started when he was paired with Pitkanen. Not only did he get more playing time with this pairing, Pitkanen offset any weakness Babchuk had, rather than enhanced it. After the two were paired together, Babchuk put up 30 points in 47 games, including 15 goals. He also went as a +20 during that time span. Pitkanen put up 17 points in those 47 games, and went +12. Hard to argue with the results.
  12. And what attitude did he show this past season? I say he sucked it up last season. He accepted what was essentially an entry-level contract to play for us last year, and despite his poor play in the playoffs, had a great regular season and earned a raise. To offer him the same amount is just JR holding a grudge.
  13. I think a lot of it may have to do with LaRose being a fan favorite here and JR knowing that he's a fan favorite here. He may have to repeat himself just so it sinks in. One thing I don't like about the free agency period is you rarely get to hear from the player in situations like this. You hear a lot from the GM, who's obviously going to twist the event in a favorable light towards himself. Obviously, the player would twist it to his point of view, but maybe if we got both sides of the story, we might be able to piece together some sort of truth. I will say one thing. Loyalty is becoming a lost factor in FA/trades these days. Boyle signs a long-term deal with the Lightning, but he's forced to waive his NTC almost the next day because Tampa management screwed up. And then there's the whole Havlat thing that went on today. He wants a decent sized contract, long term, with the team he's been loyal to. They say they don't have the money, then go and spend money on Hossa instead.
  14. There are still a lot of good players available. Havlat, Antropov, Scuderi, Tanguay off the top of my head. We could grab one of them and then losing LaRose wouldn't sting as much.
  15. The Rangers are apparently still in talks with the Heatley situation. They could grab him if they made the right trade.
  16. Ohlund signed by Tampa Bay. 7 years, 3.75 cap hit. The amount they got him for is good, but the length is ridiculous. Ohlund's already on the decline, and he'll be 39 by the time the contract ends. Still, it's obvious they grabbed him to be a mentor for Hedman. The fact that it came 5 minutes in the start of FA makes me believe there's some tampering going on, but if the league doesn't crack down, nothing to be done about it.
  17. It's a good deal for the Oilers if it gets done, but everything I'm reading says Heatley nixed that trade. He doesn't want to go to Edmonton.
  18. So he lowballed Cole. Even with his decreased play, Cole was worth more than 2 million. Wouldn't be surprised for it to come out he did the same thing to LaRose.
  19. http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=283329 Rangers just saved a lot of cap space with this move. Wouldn't be surprised to see them grab Heatley in the near future.
  20. Right. It's what I get for not paying attention to the link.
  21. http://www.snyrangersblog.com/2009/06/28/a...pov-likely-out/ The asking price is why the Rangers are probably going to be letting him go. I don't think he'd take a big discount to play here.
  22. Antropov's big and great on the PP. He's probably going to be asking about the same that we were paying Cole though, about 4-5 million. I can't believe JR's tossing Cole and LaRose to the side and trying for Michael Ryan instead. No offense to Ryan, but come on.
  23. Feel free to ignore the 3 months before the playoffs where he was playing in the Top 4 and had the highest +/- rating in the league from the All-Star break onward. LaRose isn't a Top 6 forward and shouldn't get paid like one. He's a nice guy to have, a nice spark of energy, a pest, whathaveyou. When he's on the ice, it's a wash at worst. No chances created, but no chances given up. At best, he throws opponents off their game, draws penalties, etc. But he doesn't have the skills to play Top 6 consistently. Cole, in top form, is easily a Top 6 forward. Now whether his play last season was just a funk he was in or if that's the way he plays now, there's no way to tell. I wouldn't be willing to pay him any more than 2 million to find out though.
  24. That, I've got to disagree with. Cole may not have been the greatest winger out there, but if we lose Cole and LaRose to free agency and don't replace them with anyone but callups from the AHL, we're going to have trouble next season. JR said he'd try and replace them in trades, which worries me, because at the moment, the only trading pieces we have would involve giving up picks or prospects, and we really don't need to set our weak prospect pool back another 3-5 years.
×
×
  • Create New...