L K
Active member
Deebo said:Garrison 6 yrs @ 4.6 to the Canucks.
Enjoy that one. Jeff Finger Volume 2.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Deebo said:Garrison 6 yrs @ 4.6 to the Canucks.
Deebo said:Garrison 6 yrs @ 4.6 to the Canucks.
Deebo said:Nik? said:Deebo said:I know we probably stand little chance of attracting either of these two, but the one thing that really bothers me about Burke is that his ridiculous stance on "cap circumventing" deals takes the leafs out of the running before we even have a chance to be considered.
Yeah, but you can't argue with success!
If I owned the team, I'd insist he changed that stance or I'd fire him, unless it's ownership that is telling him not to sign deals like this.
I really don't understand how he can operate in this manner, I could see a scenario where we lose Kessel because we refuse to give him a deal like this.
PG said:Deebo said:Nik? said:Deebo said:I know we probably stand little chance of attracting either of these two, but the one thing that really bothers me about Burke is that his ridiculous stance on "cap circumventing" deals takes the leafs out of the running before we even have a chance to be considered.
Yeah, but you can't argue with success!
If I owned the team, I'd insist he changed that stance or I'd fire him, unless it's ownership that is telling him not to sign deals like this.
I really don't understand how he can operate in this manner, I could see a scenario where we lose Kessel because we refuse to give him a deal like this.
It infuriates me to no end. It's hard enough to build a Cup contender, and yet you handicap yourself even more with some idiotic self-imposed "principles"?
TML fan said:PG said:Deebo said:Nik? said:Deebo said:I know we probably stand little chance of attracting either of these two, but the one thing that really bothers me about Burke is that his ridiculous stance on "cap circumventing" deals takes the leafs out of the running before we even have a chance to be considered.
Yeah, but you can't argue with success!
If I owned the team, I'd insist he changed that stance or I'd fire him, unless it's ownership that is telling him not to sign deals like this.
I really don't understand how he can operate in this manner, I could see a scenario where we lose Kessel because we refuse to give him a deal like this.
It infuriates me to no end. It's hard enough to build a Cup contender, and yet you handicap yourself even more with some idiotic self-imposed "principles"?
I wouldn't be surprised if the new CBA lined up with Burke's "idiotic principles".
skippy said:TML fan said:PG said:Deebo said:Nik? said:Deebo said:I know we probably stand little chance of attracting either of these two, but the one thing that really bothers me about Burke is that his ridiculous stance on "cap circumventing" deals takes the leafs out of the running before we even have a chance to be considered.
Yeah, but you can't argue with success!
If I owned the team, I'd insist he changed that stance or I'd fire him, unless it's ownership that is telling him not to sign deals like this.
I really don't understand how he can operate in this manner, I could see a scenario where we lose Kessel because we refuse to give him a deal like this.
It infuriates me to no end. It's hard enough to build a Cup contender, and yet you handicap yourself even more with some idiotic self-imposed "principles"?
I wouldn't be surprised if the new CBA lined up with Burke's "idiotic principles".
Awesome. So we should be able to expect Burke to finally be able to build a winner soon? Will players be banned from wearing ballcaps at the draft in the new CBA?
PG said:Deebo said:Nik? said:Deebo said:I know we probably stand little chance of attracting either of these two, but the one thing that really bothers me about Burke is that his ridiculous stance on "cap circumventing" deals takes the leafs out of the running before we even have a chance to be considered.
Yeah, but you can't argue with success!
If I owned the team, I'd insist he changed that stance or I'd fire him, unless it's ownership that is telling him not to sign deals like this.
I really don't understand how he can operate in this manner, I could see a scenario where we lose Kessel because we refuse to give him a deal like this.
It infuriates me to no end. It's hard enough to build a Cup contender, and yet you handicap yourself even more with some idiotic self-imposed "principles"?
Etiam Vultus said:Wasn't the first team to start the long term contracts the New York Islanders? First with DiPietro and then Yashin? How is that working out for them?
Nik? said:Etiam Vultus said:Wasn't the first team to start the long term contracts the New York Islanders? First with DiPietro and then Yashin? How is that working out for them?
Well, no. Yashin signed his deal before DiPietro and before the cap. Either way, neither contract is an example of front loading a contract and "circumventing" the cap.
Etiam Vultus said:You are wrong; it is not the cap circumvention that hamstrings a team - it is the length of the contract.
Nik? said:Etiam Vultus said:You are wrong; it is not the cap circumvention that hamstrings a team - it is the length of the contract.
Um, alright. But the discussion was about Burke's stance about deals that "circumvent" the cap. Not deals that are of a certain term. The point being made was that Burke's principles against the cap circumventing deals are hurting the team because lots of players want to sign deals of that nature and Burke's position essentially rules the Leafs out of the discussion for those players.
Long-term deals are a separate issue and while you can make the argument that the same discussion can be had about Burke's stance on them and how it benefits the team, it doesn't change the fact that the New York Islanders, and specifically the contracts they handed out to Alexei Yashin and Rick DiPietro are not examples of what was being discussed in the post you quoted.
Etiam Vultus said:I will concede this point to you as soon as you provide an example of a short term contract that circumvents the cap.
Darryl said:I like Prust but 4 years 10 mil is stupid money for a 4th liner. Thanks for the chuckle Montreal.
Deebo said:I have trouble with being okay with overpaying non-impact players but overpaying for top talent is out question because he refuses to go a couple years longer and tacking on some bogus years at the end due to "morals".
Nik? said:Etiam Vultus said:I will concede this point to you as soon as you provide an example of a short term contract that circumvents the cap.
I mean, if you don't see how a deal like DiPietro's is different than Luongo's I'm not sure how to explain it. People were talking about the Luongo type of contract that front loads a contract. There are short term deals that are front loaded too, Komisarek's for instance, but again that wasn't really the topic at hand.
And one of the reasons people are putting "circumvents" or derivations of that word in quotations is that some, including me, don't really feel that deals of that nature circumvent the cap
Etiam Vultus said:As pointed out by cw in another thread, there is no example of a long term contract (front-end loaded or not) helping any team win a Cup. So, to paraphrase Ben Scrivens, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine.
Bullfrog said:Etiam Vultus said:As pointed out by cw in another thread, there is no example of a long term contract (front-end loaded or not) helping any team win a Cup. So, to paraphrase Ben Scrivens, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine.
Kopitar, Richards, Carter, Doughty?
Bullfrog said:Etiam Vultus said:As pointed out by cw in another thread, there is no example of a long term contract (front-end loaded or not) helping any team win a Cup. So, to paraphrase Ben Scrivens, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine.
Kopitar, Richards, Carter, Doughty?