Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf

RxBandit66 wrote:meow wrote:I don't understand why 98% of Pens fans have Martin out the door.
Most fans could give you about 5 million reasons why.
I'd hate to see Staal or Orpik have to be traded because of cap reasons, while Martin is sucking up 5 million in cap space that could have been better spent. I have no doubt the Pens will be able to find a taker for him, but they would likely have to accept some salary in return. Mikey's suggestion of Malone might be the most practical because it helps both teams. So basically you let Sully go, replace him with Malone, and replace Martin with Despres and you save some money. But they would still be lacking a right handed shooter on the power play.
That is why people are suggesting Weber. If you trade Staal for a first rounder and it opens up the space to sign Weber, that's the only way I'd even consider doing it. But my God, if Shero could pull all of that off, it would be a miracle. Say they get Yakupov in the first round, then you've basically swapped: Staal, Martin, and Sullivan for Weber, Malone, and Yakupov.
Now I realize that this is not NHL2012 on Ps3.....but I was just following up on Mikey's Martin for Malone suggestion.

Defence21 wrote:Here's an interesting question. Does a no movement clause prevent a team from using a buyout on the player? There's much talk that the next CBA likely will have an amnesty buyout period -- would Martin's NMC prevent him from being a victim?


mikey287 wrote:Defence21 wrote:Here's an interesting question. Does a no movement clause prevent a team from using a buyout on the player? There's much talk that the next CBA likely will have an amnesty buyout period -- would Martin's NMC prevent him from being a victim?
No, players with NMC are not precluded from being bought out.

DelPen wrote:It's either keep Martin and his bloated contract or be able to keep Niskanen and bring in players like Sullivan and not have to hope Lovejoy, Kennedy, Tangradi and Jeffrey play above their contracts.
I don't think the guy is tradeable unfortunately and Bylsma is not the right coach for Martin. Lose-lose situation until one or both preferably, are gone.

sil wrote:mikey287 wrote:Defence21 wrote:Here's an interesting question. Does a no movement clause prevent a team from using a buyout on the player? There's much talk that the next CBA likely will have an amnesty buyout period -- would Martin's NMC prevent him from being a victim?
No, players with NMC are not precluded from being bought out.
I thought that was the point of the one-time amnesty clause...to allow a team to supercede that one time only.

sil wrote:DelPen wrote:It's either keep Martin and his bloated contract or be able to keep Niskanen and bring in players like Sullivan and not have to hope Lovejoy, Kennedy, Tangradi and Jeffrey play above their contracts.
I don't think the guy is tradeable unfortunately and Bylsma is not the right coach for Martin. Lose-lose situation until one or both preferably, are gone.
I don't know if it's that extreme in either case. Look at Colorado. They have all of three (3) defensemen signed for next season, and will be about $45,000,000 below the cap. They could very much use a guy like Paul Martin to move the puck up quickly to their young forward talent.

Froggy wrote:sil wrote:DelPen wrote:It's either keep Martin and his bloated contract or be able to keep Niskanen and bring in players like Sullivan and not have to hope Lovejoy, Kennedy, Tangradi and Jeffrey play above their contracts.
I don't think the guy is tradeable unfortunately and Bylsma is not the right coach for Martin. Lose-lose situation until one or both preferably, are gone.
I don't know if it's that extreme in either case. Look at Colorado. They have all of three (3) defensemen signed for next season, and will be about $45,000,000 below the cap. They could very much use a guy like Paul Martin to move the puck up quickly to their young forward talent.
I don't see Martin waiving his ntc to go to a western Conf bottom feeder though.

BurghersAndDogsSports wrote:I actually wouldn't mind seeing Orpik being shipped out of here before any of our defenseman. His only quality is making a splash hit at the blue line once every 7 games. Of course he for no good reason spends a lot of time by the blue line and letting forwards get behind him.
In all seriousness he just is not the player he once was, a bit broken down. In my eyes he was just as much of an issue as any of our guys.

Streaks House wrote:Froggy wrote:sil wrote:DelPen wrote:It's either keep Martin and his bloated contract or be able to keep Niskanen and bring in players like Sullivan and not have to hope Lovejoy, Kennedy, Tangradi and Jeffrey play above their contracts.
I don't think the guy is tradeable unfortunately and Bylsma is not the right coach for Martin. Lose-lose situation until one or both preferably, are gone.
I don't know if it's that extreme in either case. Look at Colorado. They have all of three (3) defensemen signed for next season, and will be about $45,000,000 below the cap. They could very much use a guy like Paul Martin to move the puck up quickly to their young forward talent.
I don't see Martin waiving his ntc to go to a western Conf bottom feeder though.
GMRS and PM sit down and agree that it's not working out here, I don't see any reasons why PM wouldn't be on board with a fresh start. 3 years here knowing that you aren't really wanted/good fit, I think he'd realize this and cut his losses and move on. Granted, this sets a bad precedent for future FA signings, but this is a business and you have to be cutthroat at times.


pfim wrote:Puck retrieval, transition, solid defensive play. This is why he's on the team and why he was given the contract he has. I'm not sure how anyone can argue he has excelled in any of those areas this season.
I don't know if he will be moved or not, but it's not that ridiculous that some would want him gone.

pfim wrote:Puck retrieval, transition, solid defensive play. This is why he's on the team and why he was given the contract he has. I'm not sure how anyone can argue he has excelled in any of those areas this season.
I don't know if he will be moved or not, but it's not that ridiculous that some would want him gone.

MRandall25 wrote:pfim wrote:Puck retrieval, transition, solid defensive play. This is why he's on the team and why he was given the contract he has. I'm not sure how anyone can argue he has excelled in any of those areas this season.
I don't know if he will be moved or not, but it's not that ridiculous that some would want him gone.
Because one year is a small sample size, considering how different and better his play was last year.

sil wrote:MRandall25 wrote:pfim wrote:Puck retrieval, transition, solid defensive play. This is why he's on the team and why he was given the contract he has. I'm not sure how anyone can argue he has excelled in any of those areas this season.
I don't know if he will be moved or not, but it's not that ridiculous that some would want him gone.
Because one year is a small sample size, considering how different and better his play was last year.
His play in 2010-11 was better than 2011-12, but still not close to what a lot of us were expecting. And perhaps that was our mistake having our hopes too high.

MRandall25 wrote:pfim wrote:Puck retrieval, transition, solid defensive play. This is why he's on the team and why he was given the contract he has. I'm not sure how anyone can argue he has excelled in any of those areas this season.
I don't know if he will be moved or not, but it's not that ridiculous that some would want him gone.
Because one year is a small sample size, considering how different and better his play was last year.



Froggy wrote:Be fair here. Martin was awful to start the season, he improved in Nov/Dec, after he was split with Z, and he was our best d man down the stretch. To say he was terrible the entire season is wrong

Sarcastic wrote:Froggy wrote:Be fair here. Martin was awful to start the season, he improved in Nov/Dec, after he was split with Z, and he was our best d man down the stretch. To say he was terrible the entire season is wrong
He was fine for a while with Letang, then folded like a cheap sofa under pressure and physical play of the Flyers.


sil wrote:Just to throw another wrench out there...I, personally, would rather be rid of Orpik before Michalek.

Froggy wrote:Be fair here. Martin was awful to start the season, he improved in Nov/Dec, after he was split with Z, and he was our best d man down the stretch. To say he was terrible the entire season is wrong

Nizzy wrote:Martin has to go.
Costs too much, brings too little.
Despres, Bortuzzo, Strait are all bigger, younger, cheaper, HUNGRIER. These 3 defenseman all will be on entry level deals, Shero's typical 3 year, low salary deals for the next 4-5 years I'd imagine. They've all been brought up through the system. They know what to expect coming up, from how they should play. Automatically it probably makes them better options of Martin.
Getting rid of Martin's contract:
Allows us to give Staal 2M more.
Allows us to give Letang his money.
Gets younger guys that want it more on the team, a bigger 1-7 defensive group.
Letang Orpik
Michalek Niskanen
Despres Engelland
Strait Bortuzzo

Users browsing this forum: pcmforless, RisslingsMissingTeeth, Rocco, RPKJr429, tfrizz, topshelf66 and 43 guests