[weave]

shadedpain4, on 22 July 2010 - 09:31 AM, said:

Not really a fair comparison is it?

Connolly:

05-06: 63 GP
02-03: 80 GP
01-02: 82 GP
00-01: 82 GP
99-00: 81 GP

Incomplete information is incomplete.

He was signed to an extention in '09. After he played 63 GP, 2 GP, 48 GP. So yeah, the comparison does have some validity.

[weave]

TheChimp, on 22 July 2010 - 05:17 AM, said:

They gave Connolly three.

Connolly is on the 2nd year of a 2 year extention he signed in '09 actually.

[shadedpain4]

weave, on 22 July 2010 - 08:44 AM, said:

Incomplete information is incomplete.

He was signed to an extention in '09. After he played 63 GP, 2 GP, 48 GP. So yeah, the comparison does have some validity.

The original comment was that Kaleta has never played more than 55 games in a season. Connolly has done this in 5 seasons. What's incomplete?

[Skibum]

Good thing this didn't go to arbitration: I just saw that Clarke MacArthur was awarded $2.4M for one year!

[weave]

shadedpain4, on 22 July 2010 - 10:32 AM, said:

The original comment was that Kaleta has never played more than 55 games in a season. Connolly has done this in 5 seasons. What's incomplete?

The context of Chimp's reply was that they gave another injury prone player a 3 year deal (incorrect tho). Your reply glossed over the injury-prone part of his career. I added it to show where Chimp was coming from.

[thetrump]

TheChimp, on 22 July 2010 - 05:17 AM, said:

They gave Connolly three.

They gave Connolly a 2 year extension. http://www.capgeek.c...play.php?id=378

[weave]

thetrump, on 22 July 2010 - 11:59 AM, said:

They gave Connolly a 2 year extension. http://www.capgeek.c...play.php?id=378

I SAID IT FIRST !!!!


:D :D

[Awiniganov1271]

TheChimp, on 22 July 2010 - 12:57 AM, said:

In my opinion, yes. He plays his role really well and improves his play with every season, so far. What would he have had to do to warrant a longer contract in your opinion?

And why would Kaleta sign a long term deal? Whats HIS incentive for doing so?

"You're worth 1M to us now, you should sign for that for 5 years"

or

"You're worth 1M now, why not play for that for 2 seasons, then re-evaluate where you are and possibly pay you more money"


Which would you take? Its not even remotely close

[thetrump]

Awiniganov1271, on 22 July 2010 - 12:50 PM, said:

And why would Kaleta sign a long term deal? Whats HIS incentive for doing so?

"You're worth 1M to us now, you should sign for that for 5 years"

or

"You're worth 1M now, why not play for that for 2 seasons, then re-evaluate where you are and possibly pay you more money"


Which would you take? Its not even remotely close

Everyone around here just assumes that Darcy makes an offer and a player either accepts or refuses, with no counter offer or negotiations. I don't think they realize that sometimes it is advantageous for a player to sign a shorter term contract, especially when they are on the rise such as Kaleta.

[TheChimp]

Awiniganov1271, on 22 July 2010 - 10:50 AM, said:

And why would Kaleta sign a long term deal? Whats HIS incentive for doing so?

"You're worth 1M to us now, you should sign for that for 5 years"

or

"You're worth 1M now, why not play for that for 2 seasons, then re-evaluate where you are and possibly pay you more money"


Which would you take? Its not even remotely close

Good point. Darcy probably offered him a six-year contract at 550,000 a year.

And touche on the Connolly thing. I thought it was three, my bad. Again Darcy stayed short-term. I just forgot.

[thetrump]

TheChimp, on 22 July 2010 - 01:50 PM, said:

Good point. Darcy probably offered him a six-year contract at 550,000 a year.

And touche on the Connolly thing. I thought it was three, my bad. Again Darcy stayed short-term. I just forgot.

Half of this board was outraged that he was even re-signed at all. Why do you think he should be signing players who have had injury problems to long term contracts?

[TheChimp]

thetrump, on 22 July 2010 - 01:25 PM, said:

Half of this board was outraged that he was even re-signed at all. Why do you think he should be signing players who have had injury problems to long term contracts?

If nobody who ever received an injury got signed to contracts longer than two seasons, nobody in the league would have contracts longer than two seasons.

[kym2745]

Connely = soft
Kaleta = tough

I'm not one to post much, but this comparison is nil. Connely has done nothing and Kaleta plays with intensity every game. I thought Kaleta earned more...he puts his crap on the line every game. He brings the entire team into the game. Unless I'm an idiot...I think he's underpaid compared to the rest of our overpaid roster

[thetrump]

TheChimp, on 22 July 2010 - 07:52 PM, said:

If nobody who ever received an injury got signed to contracts longer than two seasons, nobody in the league would have contracts longer than two seasons.

Did I say anyone who has been ever injured? I said "injury problems". There is a big difference. We all know about Connolly's health history. And the physical nature of Kaleta's game has caused him to missed substantial time the last two seasons.

[TheChimp]

thetrump, on 23 July 2010 - 12:25 PM, said:

Did I say anyone who has been ever injured? I said "injury problems". There is a big difference. We all know about Connolly's health history. And the physical nature of Kaleta's game has caused him to missed substantial time the last two seasons.

Define "injury problems" as it applies here. While presenting your argument, you might wish to take into consideration how many concussions Connolly has suffered since his last one. Also take into account how many games he played this past season before he got his ankle (?) tweaked and he missed a few games.

[thetrump]

TheChimp, on 23 July 2010 - 03:34 PM, said:

Define "injury problems" as it applies here. While presenting your argument, you might wish to take into consideration how many concussions Connolly has suffered since his last one. Also take into account how many games he played this past season before he got his ankle (?) tweaked and he missed a few games.

The number of games he played this year is completely irrelevant. He signed his contract at the trade deadline of 2009. A year which he missed the whole months of October and December. The following year he only played 48 games and the year before that he played 2 (reg season). That is why he was signed to a two year contract.

I'm sure some of the same logic was used when signing Kaleta. I guess you just don't seem to understand the point I am trying to make.

[TheChimp]

Dude, chill. I wanted Kaleta signed longer, that's all. I could care less about all of you guys reasoning everything out to make others feel somehow wrong in their opinions. It's old. You think it was a great signing and Darcy is a fracking genius, and I wish we could have Kaleta signed longer so he doesn't go UFA as soon as he will now. In the grand scheme of things, nobody fracking cares one way or the other. Quit getting all bent about it. Seriously, you usually just dismiss me and talk to other people. I like that better than this nonsense.

[SabresWinItAll51]

Note to self: Don't question Chimp's thoughts too much, he will get defensive.

[TheChimp]

SabresWinItAll51, on 23 July 2010 - 05:48 PM, said:

Note to self: Don't question Chimp's thoughts too much, he will get defensive.

Awww, what's the matter, 51, gdameo and toddkaz not around for you to pick on?

[SabresWinItAll51]

Toddkaz is gone forever hopefully. I don't think i've argued with gdameo much in the past. And no, nothing's the matter.