Avalanche Low Balling Stewart and Mueller?
by sheese on Sep 2, 2010 7:46 AM MDT
Email
Print
Chris Stewart of the Colorado Avalanche is another good example. He led Colorado in goals with 28 last season and emerged as a budding power forward. Conventional wisdom might suggest the Avs would want to sign him to a long-term deal, but they’re only offering two years and Stewart will probably have to settle for something in the $2.5- to $3-million range. The Avs are being even more aggressive with Peter Mueller, to whom they’re offering about $1.6 million a season on a two-year deal.
This seems a little low to me (esp. Mueller's offer), but as the article points out neither of these players have really established themselves as long term, high level players. It could be that at these contract levels in two years everyone could be complaining about how they are overpaid (Scott Hannan anyone?). I do think the Av's may be shooting themselves in the foot though if they are playing hard ball and creating animosity between the players and organization. Hopefully this all works out for the best in the long term... for the players and the team.
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.
37 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Not to be a douche…though I am at times…but this is being discussed in a Fanshot below:
http://www.milehighhockey.com/2010/8/31/1661472/some-stewart-and-mueller-news
And BTW, I love the people who feel Hannan is overpaid. He is, a bit…but he is a good stay at home defensemen who simply looks over-paid because he’s not flashy. It’s the same argument people had regarding Ryan Smyth being over-paid
Help help! I'm being repressed!
And BTW, I love the people who feel Hannan is overpaid. He is, a bit…but he is a good stay at home defensemen who simply looks over-paid because he’s not flashy.
No, that’s not correct at all. Thanks for telling “the people” why Hannan looks overpaid, but I’ll disagree with you, if that’s OK. Who would you rather have: Hannan, Volchenkov, or Hjalmarsson? Go ahead and rank them for me, please. I’m pretty sure Hannan’s 3rd on your list, and he makes the most money of all of them.
Hannan’s overpaid because he’s just not very good. He has no offensive game, he’s a terrible puck-moving defenseman, he’s not physical, he doesn’t shut anyone down, and he provides zero leadership. His strengths are his durability and his awesome agent.
Last season was the first (out of 3) that he was the Avs’ best defenseman, even though he’s been their highest-paid defenseman all 3 years. (The season before that he turned in the single-worst season of all-time by an Avs defenseman, so I think he looked a lot better to “the people” last season because he wasn’t as dreadful.) And calling someone the best defenseman on last year’s Avs is like calling someone the most beautiful woman in England.
Karlis Skratsins – not flashy, not overpaid.
Kurt Sauer – not flashy, not overpaid.
Alexei Gusarov – not flashy, not overpaid
Greg Devries – not flashy…you get the picture.
You'll see all your favorite soccer stars. Like Adiaga! Adiaga two! Badiaga! Aruglia! And Pizzoza!
by Dan Winkler on Sep 2, 2010 8:48 AM MDT up reply actions
For the love of Pete do you have high standards. Have you never seen Kate Beckinsale? Jane Seymour? Rachel Weisz?
by MalachiConstant on Sep 2, 2010 9:01 AM MDT up reply actions
On pure hockey, I’d take Hannan over Hjalmarsson
Intelligent opinion does not follow the transitive property
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Sep 2, 2010 9:20 AM MDT up reply actions
at hannan’s 7th year he scored 24 pts, vol scored 14, given they are not out there to score but I don’t dislike Hannan. He’s overpaid, but within a year all but one or two of the free agents of this summer will be too, and he’s probably only overpaid by about a 1/2 million bucks, which isn’t that much now a days.
Homer no function beer well without.
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Sep 2, 2010 6:31 PM MDT up reply actions
I can’t think of a single good reason that the Avs didn’t go after Volchenkov, other than the fact that they are just being cheaper than hell. Sure they have a bajillion good D-man prospects. But none of them fill the role that Volchenkov would fill … a role that desperately needs to be filled so that Andy isn’t dead before he’s 32.
Your 2010-2011 Colorado Avalanche: Reaching Up to the Cap Floor
by Bob in Boulder on Sep 2, 2010 9:44 AM MDT up reply actions
well, there’s the whole only plays ~65 games a year thing too. Volchenkov has missed 47 games in the last 3 years. Hannan, otoh, plays nearly every game — he’s only missed 2 in the last 3 years. definitely something to be said for durability and the style that promotes it.
Volchenkov made me very nervous.
here’s the problem: Hjalmarsson and Volchenkov signed contracts 3 years after Hannan, in an entirely different free agent market. Hjalmarsson wasn’t even a UFA. Imagine if they were both UFAs in 2007 — I have no issue thinking they would have received as much or more.
If we’re dealing with comparisons, I like Mike Komisarek better. Another defensive defenseman with little offensive skill…and lo and behold, in a more similar UFA market to the one Hannan signed in, he also makes 4.5m.
Hannan (and Komisarek) are both slightly overpaid because of the market they were in, and the needs of the Avs. That’s par for the course in UFA. This does not make Hannan a bad player. He’s doing exactly what he’s always done. Some of us, myself included, remembered his mugging days in the playoffs during the dead puck era, and thought he brought a more physical presence, but you know what? I’m over it. In the new NHL, he’d be a penalty nightmare playing that game — he’s adapted successfully. And if you really expected offense from Hannan, I don’t know what to say. If Hannan played offense, he’s be the biggest bargain in the NHL at 4.5m — and we’d never have gotten him at that price.
I get your point that there were other defenders not flashy and not overpaid as well, but none of those guys are as good of defenders as Hannan, many were in entirely different circumstances with regard to contracts, and Hannan was as close to a sure thing as you get, while many of those were not.
by thedoctor on Sep 2, 2010 9:58 AM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
When the NHL Network was showing the “Raising the Cup” series, I watched the 96 and 2001 Cup Finals…they were ridiculous with what people could get away with. Again, that’s when Hannan was the Forsberg mugger (as you pointed out). Watch the 96 game, then last years Finals…night and day on penalty calls
Help help! I'm being repressed!
Actually just watched the ‘96 game. The Avs were not good on defense. In fact, the defense in that game reminded me a whole lot of the defense the Avs had last year. Now, they might have just been having a bad game (up 3-0 in the series and all) and I don’t really remember how they were the rest of the season, but there were tons of missed coverage and giveaways in the D zone and they sure as heck left Roy out to dry all over the place.
But that team took steps in the next few years to upgrade their defense. This team?
I’m just saying the penalty discrepancy was HUGE. Forsberg had about 5 cross-checks from behind. There were some actual WWF (‘scuse me, WWE) style clotheslines that went uncalled. But yes, the D was awful both ways really…yes it was a triple OT game, but Roy stopped 63 shots and Beezer about 50 (Can’ find the total)…that’s a lot of rubber both ways
Help help! I'm being repressed!
For 09-10 Hannan, I agree with what you’ve said above. In 08-09, though, he was worse than Brett Clark. I think that’s all that needs be said.
Colorado Avalanche Offseason Strategy - Please wake us in October
What is this 08-09 of which you speak?
I just like the fights.
by Cheryl Bradley on Sep 2, 2010 11:01 AM MDT up reply actions
Devries and Skrastins, at times with the Avs, were both as good as Hannan has been with the Avs. Skrastins was better 2 seasons ago than Hannan was, Corsi-compared and all. And they cost one-half to one-third less than Hannan did.
Can anyone honestly say that Hannan’s performed up to the level of his paycheck? At the end of the day, isn’t that the question? He hasn’t even come close. If he was making $2.5 million/year, that would be one thing, it would be OK. But he’s absolutely overpaid for what he’s delivered – not “slightly,” but by a lot.
When I said he didn’t score, I didn’t say anything about what my expectation was. But I certainly expected him to continue what he did in San Jose – 24+ points/season, around 5 goals or so, instead of 10 points (in his truly terrible awful horrible year) and 1-2 goals.
I didn’t say Hannan’s a bad player (although he’s not very good). I said he’s overpaid. And then I listed the reasons why I believe he’s overpaid, none of which included “he’s not flashy enough.”
You'll see all your favorite soccer stars. Like Adiaga! Adiaga two! Badiaga! Aruglia! And Pizzoza!
by Dan Winkler on Sep 2, 2010 10:51 AM MDT up reply actions
once again, we face the issue of defensive evaluation being so subjective. I disagree, I think Hannan is a better defender and player overall than either of those you list. I disagree when you say he’s not a shutdown guy, he does that quite well. No, he’s not a big hitter or a vocal leader or an offensive powerhouse, but I’m ok with that. I think it’s simply your expectation that he’s good at those things for the price tag, and that’s not realistic.
I mean, I would prefer him to be paid slightly less as well. But my point is that overpayment was par for the course in UFA for established players. Just look at Komisarek, or Souray, or Redden, or Campbell, or…the list goes on and on. The real failing is that the Avs were forced to go get Hannan in UFA because they didn’t have the homegrown guys to fill the spot instead. Imagine if we’d kept Regehr or Ballard or even Gilbert.
As for the points, it bears mentioning SJ used Hannan on the 2nd unit PP, iirc. That would explain the points discrepancy. This is exactly the offensive output I expected from him, given the situations he’s played in and what I knew of him before he came here.
I agree, he’s excellent positionally and I think I speak for all of us in saying I wish he’d use his body more, but how many scouting reports say the same thing about a bunch of players in this league?
Homer no function beer well without.
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Sep 2, 2010 6:35 PM MDT up reply actions
Crap
My first Fan post ever and I was beaten to the punch. That’s what happens when I post while still half asleep and only quickly glance at the other pages titles. Oh well, at least I got my first time out of the way… it never quite goes the way you hope it would.
I suggest drinking. Heavily. It’s worked for me.
Homer no function beer well without.
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Sep 2, 2010 6:38 PM MDT up reply actions
Makes your Fanposts more interesting too.
Colorado Avalanche Offseason Strategy - Please wake us in October
to me defantely, to the rest of you, I’m not so sure. but I will continue to post at my best.
Homer no function beer well without.
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Sep 2, 2010 9:17 PM MDT up reply actions
So far nobody is smoking crack
As nobody has voted for too high. The shrute is shrewd.
Your 2010-2011 Colorado Avalanche: Reaching Up to the Cap Floor
These numbers...
…do not get us to the cap floor.
This space available for advertising opportunities.
Correct.
Avs are currently at $38.4M with 20 players signed per Capgeek.com.
Add the two contracts estimated above for $4.1M to $4.6M and they’re at $42.5M to $43.0M. Add a 7th D for $500K+ and you get $43.0M+, which is spitting distance of the floor at $43.4M.
Whether Stewie gets the $400K or they end up with somebody making more than Liffiton as the 7th D, it’s all just re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic riveting high finance in the sports world.
Colorado Avalanche Offseason Strategy - Please wake us in October
So I’m six beers into the night and it’s just as good as you can imagine. Are the avs really lowballing anyone with the new league crackdown on contracts? I think they are weilding (that doesn’t look right-holding) the stick that the league is giving them.
Homer no function beer well without.
by An Unmitigated Disaster on Sep 2, 2010 9:20 PM MDT reply actions
Mueller
I guess I’ll be the one to say it. I don’t think the Avs are lowballing Mueller at all. He’s got a history of concussions now, and he had 15 wonderful games, preceded by two awful seasons (injuries or no). When you look at what more proven guys have gotten this summer I don’t think the offer to Mueller is all that bad.
And Mueller needs to understand that. He’s got potential, but in order to get paid you have t live up to that potential. A 2-year contract for him is a good thing. He can prove himself and really get paid.
Intelligent opinion does not follow the transitive property
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
Could not agree more. And judging by that Mueller’s recent quotes, he’s not even involved with the negotiations, so I doubt there’s any lack of understanding there.
Excellent
Intelligent opinion does not follow the transitive property
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Sep 4, 2010 2:05 PM MDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Mile High Hockey
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
