Dave Bolland

[bustaheims]

No they did n't but they were inquiring about him again at the trade deadline.

Or so the media wants you to believe. There's no real evidence that they did or did not, just speculation.

 

[freer]

No they did n't but they were inquiring about him again at the trade deadline.

Or so the media wants you to believe. There's no real evidence that they did or did not, just speculation.

Yes I guess. But that is true with anything, until you see it on paper.

 

[bustaheims]

Yes I guess. But that is true with anything, until you see it on paper.

Sure, which means absent the Hawks reacquiring him or someone in their front office coming out and saying they wanted him back, the speculation that they considered looking into bringing him back at the trade deadline is absolutely valueless.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

No they did n't but they were inquiring about him again at the trade deadline.

Or so the media wants you to believe. There's no real evidence that they did or did not, just speculation.

Were they rumoured to be looking at him? I actually just never heard that before.

 

[Kin]

Wasn't Bolland still injured at the deadline? Seems to me that would have curtailed any interest in him from anyone.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

No they did n't but they were inquiring about him again at the trade deadline.

Or so the media wants you to believe. There's no real evidence that they did or did not, just speculation.

Were they rumoured to be looking at him? I actually just never heard that before.

Also never heard of this rumour, and nothing turned up initially on searching it.

 

[Redleaf]

Yes I guess. But that is true with anything, until you see it on paper.

Sure, which means absent the Hawks reacquiring him or someone in their front office coming out and saying they wanted him back, the speculation that they considered looking into bringing him back at the trade deadline is absolutely valueless.

As is the whole rumour page of this site, but you still post there, right?

 

[freer]

Yes I guess. But that is true with anything, until you see it on paper.

Sure, which means absent the Hawks reacquiring him or someone in their front office coming out and saying they wanted him back, the speculation that they considered looking into bringing him back at the trade deadline is absolutely valueless.

As is the whole rumour page of this site, but you still post there, right?

it was on TSN trade dead line show.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Yes I guess. But that is true with anything, until you see it on paper.

Sure, which means absent the Hawks reacquiring him or someone in their front office coming out and saying they wanted him back, the speculation that they considered looking into bringing him back at the trade deadline is absolutely valueless.

As is the whole rumour page of this site, but you still post there, right?

You mean the section where everyone takes the rumours with massive grains of salt? 

I don't get your point at all.

 

[Redleaf]

Yes I guess. But that is true with anything, until you see it on paper.

Sure, which means absent the Hawks reacquiring him or someone in their front office coming out and saying they wanted him back, the speculation that they considered looking into bringing him back at the trade deadline is absolutely valueless.

As is the whole rumour page of this site, but you still post there, right?

You mean the section where everyone takes the rumours with massive grains of salt? 

I don't get your point at all.

It'll come to you. Or you could tag Busta?

 

[Kin]

I'm still unsure of the general point here. Even if Chicago did inquire about Bolland, what does that prove? They also went out of their way to re-acquire Kris Versteeg for the end of their bench and he provided them with virtually nothing. The point about Anaheim getting about as much for Holland as Chicago did for him would still be valid.

 

[mr grieves]

There is no amount of weight too large in describing this issue.  You cannot build a winning team in today's NHL unless every contract is perfect; every dollar must make sense.

Well, that's just not true. Every good team has bad contracts. Look at the two teams in the finals. Both are reported to be interested in using their compliance buyouts on the various Richardses.

That they still have compliance buyouts with which to get rid of bad contracts is telling. Every good team has bad contracts, sure, but how many have so many that they've used both of their compliance buyouts and still have contracts they can't escape?

 

[Deebo]

There is no amount of weight too large in describing this issue.  You cannot build a winning team in today's NHL unless every contract is perfect; every dollar must make sense.

Well, that's just not true. Every good team has bad contracts. Look at the two teams in the finals. Both are reported to be interested in using their compliance buyouts on the various Richardses.

That they still have compliance buyouts with which to get rid of bad contracts is telling. Every good team has bad contracts, sure, but how many have so many that they've used both of their compliance buyouts and still have contracts they can't escape?

The Flyers are the only one I can think of:

Streit at 5.25 for 3 more years
Lecavalier at 4.5 for 4 more years
MacDonald at 5.0 for 6 more years

The CBOs were used on Briere and Bryzgalov

 

[Kin]

That they still have compliance buyouts with which to get rid of bad contracts is telling. Every good team has bad contracts, sure, but how many have so many that they've used both of their compliance buyouts and still have contracts they can't escape?

That seems like kind of a side issue. If the Rangers/Kings didn't have those buyouts they'd be stuck with those players...and would still be able to compete with them as we saw.

I'm not making the case that they've done a worse or comparable job to the Leafs in terms of managing their cap. Just that having a bad contract on the books isn't a death knell.

 

[mr grieves]

That they still have compliance buyouts with which to get rid of bad contracts is telling. Every good team has bad contracts, sure, but how many have so many that they've used both of their compliance buyouts and still have contracts they can't escape?

That seems like kind of a side issue. If the Rangers/Kings didn't have those buyouts they'd be stuck with those players...and would still be able to compete with them as we saw.

I'm not making the case that they've done a worse or comparable job to the Leafs in terms of managing their cap. Just that having a bad contract on the books isn't a death knell.

Yeah, I don't disagree with your reply to the OP. "No bad contracts" is an overstatement. But if you've got more bad contracts than compliance buyouts to wipe them out, you've probably got so many overpaid third liners and bottom-pairing defensemen that it becomes hard to upgrade talent where you need to (center, defense).

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

@Hope_Smoke

Dreger "so, in the days ahead, that's what Nonis & Shanahan have to wrestle with. They'll make an offer & it will start with a 4 not a 5"

If that's anywhere close to true, not a fan at all of starting at $4 million for Bolland.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Yes I guess. But that is true with anything, until you see it on paper.

Sure, which means absent the Hawks reacquiring him or someone in their front office coming out and saying they wanted him back, the speculation that they considered looking into bringing him back at the trade deadline is absolutely valueless.

As is the whole rumour page of this site, but you still post there, right?

You mean the section where everyone takes the rumours with massive grains of salt? 

I don't get your point at all.

It'll come to you. Or you could tag Busta?

No point then, got it.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

@Hope_Smoke

Dreger "so, in the days ahead, that's what Nonis & Shanahan have to wrestle with. They'll make an offer & it will start with a 4 not a 5"

If that's anywhere close to true, not a fan at all of starting at $4 million for Bolland.

The Leafs offering him $4mil really shouldn't be a surprise, although as far as I'm concerned that's just Dreger making an educated guess as opposed to any concrete evidence from inside the organization. The only way we don't sign him is if Nonis gets stingy on the term.

 

[mr grieves]

@Hope_Smoke

Dreger "so, in the days ahead, that's what Nonis & Shanahan have to wrestle with. They'll make an offer & it will start with a 4 not a 5"

If that's anywhere close to true, not a fan at all of starting at $4 million for Bolland.

The Leafs offering him $4mil really shouldn't be a surprise, although as far as I'm concerned that's just Dreger making an educated guess as opposed to any concrete evidence from inside the organization. The only way we don't sign him is if Nonis gets stingy on the term.

If Mirtle's new column about the Leafs' salary situation is correct -- and he tends to be -- that'd leave around $8-9m for a backup goaltender, the rest of a third line, a fourth line, and upgrades on defense. So... trades, I'd think.

 

[caver]

I don't see any way around that...the trades need to happen if this team is to move ahead.