Now more than ever... why didn't they buy out Tucker?

by Dario on Jul 12, 2009 8:13 PM MDT Comment 22 comments

Unlike most things I post this one it going to be short. Now, in retrospect we know the Avalanche were going to cut costs...so why didn't they buy out Tucker?

The deadline for buyouts was June 29th so this fantasy is just too late. The only compelling reason to NOT buy out a player is because 1. You don't want his buyout amount to hit your cap next year and 2. Even if you buy him out there's not anyone better or cheaper for the cost (ie Theodore in '80-'09). So now that you look back on things in retrospect, the Avs aren't trying to save cap room so Tucker's salary buyout hit of 750,000 for 2010-11 wouldn't have effected the team. So instead of buying out his 2.2 million dollar contract this year for just 1.5 million the Avs are just going to keep him on the roster for the full boat? They wouldn't qualify McCormick? If the team is going young then I can't even do a lineup right now and see where Tucker fits in.

MileHighHockey.com is a fan community, allowing members to post their own thoughts and opinions on the Colorado Avalanche and hockey in general. These views and thoughts may not be shared by the editors of MileHighHockey.com.

0 recs | Comment 22 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

i think this team is going to try for some action next year for PL’s 3rd piece and wants as much room as it can get. and of course PL loves Tucker too, he probably thinks there’s a chance for a turnaround.

by thedoctor on Jul 12, 2009 8:21 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

We can all still hope that they put him on waivers after our younguns blow everybody’s socks off in the preseason.

Right?

by Hopfenkopf on Jul 12, 2009 8:47 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

I have to think it’s a combination of a couple of things. One, they obviously think he can turn it around, coupled with two, Kroenke DOES want to cut costs, and when you add in a replacements salary with the buyout cost its probably close to a wash. I also think the loyalty the Avs have shown players has an effect too. We’ve had a couple of real duds on the team, and I can’t recall buying out a single one (see Arnason, Tyler). As stated above, see also Theodore, Jose. So maybe the same things you’re seeing Dario, just slightly re-worded

And I do see where tucker fits in. We have a HUGE hole at CD without him in the lineup. Complete Douche, that is, not center and defense. That’s actually the thing that irritates me the most about him. I’ve rarely seen a dirtier player in an avs uni. Even Claude didn’t have a completely new penalty enacted because of him, and at least Claude contributed. A lot.

Get rid of the loser point

08-09 Avs- can we decline the penalty?

by TheRed on Jul 12, 2009 11:17 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

The only dirtier player that's really coming to mind is

Brian Marchement.

softpillowcase

by Selanne on Jul 13, 2009 6:24 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

PL has no brain. End of story,

An ounce of confidence can carry you a mile toward winning. Oh, and Red Wings suck.

by texacogirl on Jul 12, 2009 11:42 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Actually, I think it’s not that bad of a thing. Enough room was made with Smyth and Sakic being gone… no sense using any more space on a player who isn’t even on the team. And I don’t think Tucker is as bad as a lot of people think he is.

Hockey... The most favoritest sport of Jesus.

by Pinchy The Lobster on Jul 13, 2009 8:41 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

And I don’t think Tucker is as bad as a lot of people think he is.

I rebutt this with the “Darcy Tucker” defense.

Darcy Tucker.
Darcy Tucker.
Darcy Tucker.

The 2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Slumpbusters

by Jibblescribbits on Jul 13, 2009 8:58 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t even think “rebutt” is a real word… Therefore my opinion on Tucker stands!

Hockey... The most favoritest sport of Jesus.

by Pinchy The Lobster on Jul 13, 2009 9:07 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Darcy Tucker!

The 2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Slumpbusters

by Jibblescribbits on Jul 13, 2009 9:17 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

(hmm… maybe I am being rebutted and don’t even realize it)

Hockey... The most favoritest sport of Jesus.

by Pinchy The Lobster on Jul 13, 2009 9:23 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

This guy might need a rebutt job.

Hockey... The most favoritest sport of Jesus.

by Pinchy The Lobster on Jul 13, 2009 9:14 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lake Erie

There’s the off chance we could put him in Lake Erie or try to get him in the lineup and see if we can get any trade value for him.

by Avalangelist on Jul 13, 2009 3:55 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Ehh

You may as well keep him. No sense paying for an extra bit player when you already have one on the roster. That’s counter-productive to cutting costs. They’re gonna suck anyway this year, so keep the suckiest player under contract around. It can only be a good omen for the Ti4TH sweeps in 2009-2010.

"Horton is win."
--Horvil Tiki

by wtnelson on Jul 13, 2009 5:58 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Can we define the Darcy Tucker drinking game now? I know I"m going to need it. It should include falling down, weak drop passes at the blue line that lead to offensive rushes for the other team and every TV shot of him on the bench not talking to any of his teammates. I need details on how much and how often I will need my stomach pumped.

by Dario on Jul 13, 2009 7:05 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Back up Dario, we don’t want you to drink yourself into a coma….

MHH: Like the Avs organization, we’ve now officially lost our minds.

I'm The Canary - but I'm not cute nor cuddly, and I don't sing.

by Americanario on Jul 13, 2009 9:09 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Drink everytime you see that look of panic on his face when he goes in for a hit, but is too slow and is now way out of the play.

I'm Mr. Positive

by An Unmitigated Disaster on Jul 14, 2009 9:44 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

No buyout

I’m actually on board with not buying out D. Tucker, and it’s all cap related.

If we had bought him out, then the cap hit would have been extended over next season as well. Granted it’s less of a cap hit, but there’s still a cap hit next season, as well as one this season.

Next season the cap is likely to go down, and the last thing anyone wants is cap space being used up in a player who’s not even on the roster.

Combine that with the fact that a buyout of Tucker wouldn’t even save all that much, and I think not buying out Darcy Tucker is an ok move.

The 2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Slumpbusters

by Jibblescribbits on Jul 13, 2009 7:25 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Agree with Jibbles

In looking at the bigger, long-term picture of the Avs, I don’t think buying out his contract fits in. I am under the impression that the franchise wants to have their cap as low as possible at the end of the season, so they don’t want that residual buyout extended into next season. Since the team really isn’t a contender right now, Tucker isn’t that big of a factor. My assumption is that the Avs are going to have another top 3 draft pick next year, which I am all in favor of because it will accelerate the rebuild process.

In terms of letting McCormick and Guite go, those contracts were up, there is no residual cost to letting those two go, and it may have been perceived that they were taking up spots the youngsters could fill. If the Avs don’t play these young guys, they will never know what they have. It will be a season of letting them play, seeing how they do, and then deciding whether they are keepers or trade-bait. I hope both Guite and McCormick are picked up, because they are good guys and hard workers.

Colorado Avalanche: Please excuse the mess while we are under construction.

by hockeymom on Jul 13, 2009 8:13 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is pretty much what I think as well. His salary easily fits in this years cap now that they have traded Smyth and Sakic isn’t returning. I think they may have considered buying out Tucker if they knew Sakic was returning and they needed the room, but they knew he wasn’t so it is better to spend more on Tucker this year and then have him completely off the books next year.

The one other possible benefit, no matter how remote, is that if Tucker has a contract year we could possibly trade him at the deadline to a team that is lacking in whatever it is they think Tucker brings to the table. I’d be happy with a 7th rounder (any earlier round would just be considered a bonus). I would also be quite happy with a trade for a bag of wooden hockey sticks so SOS doesn’t have to go composite.

by exredcoat on Jul 13, 2009 8:36 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

The one other possible benefit, no matter how remote, is that if Tucker has a contract year we could possibly trade him at the deadline to a team that is lacking in whatever it is they think Tucker brings to the table. I’d be happy with a 7th rounder (any earlier round would just be considered a bonus). I would also be quite happy with a trade for a bag of wooden hockey sticks so SOS doesn’t have to go composite

I forgot to mention this. Some team, desperate for "grit"at the trade deadline might be willing to take him for something/anything. I know we couldn’t get rid of Arnason last year at the deadline, but who knows with Tucker. I mean he’ll be on the top line, at least to start the season (We all know this to be true) and probably get some cheap assists from Stas and Hejduk. Maybe we can fool people into thinking he’s worth something, anything. Even a bag of pucks.

The 2008-2009 Colorado Avalanche: Slumpbusters

by Jibblescribbits on Jul 13, 2009 8:56 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs