Thrashers

By Buzilla Baby Blues

September 18, 2007 2:47 PM | Link to this

Craig:

Did Sutton play in the game?

By Jameson

September 18, 2007 5:33 PM | Link to this

I agree, I’d really like to see Little get at least a couple of shifts between our regular scoring wings to at least get a feel for how far he is from sticking with them.

By Tony C.

September 18, 2007 5:43 PM | Link to this

Little between Hoss & Slava-Matic???

seriously?

Hey, if he can hack it, I say run it!

GO BLUE !!!

By Craig Custance

September 18, 2007 5:49 PM | Link to this

The Thrashers will be announcing a round of cuts, 13 guys total. No big surprises. Holzapfel was a long-shot, but he’s going back to junior.

By Brendan

September 18, 2007 6:02 PM | Link to this

Craig, thank you for such great coverage from Traverse City and thus far in the preseason. I really want to see some surprizes come out of camp. I’m rooting for the young players to make. But am not holding my breathe about it.

In particular, I am rooting for Sterling, Pavelec, Little and Popovic.

By LAC

September 18, 2007 6:57 PM | Link to this

Brenden you may not have to root too hard for Pavelec, this kid is GOOD, No… He is VERY GOOD.

I was in St.Louis and he made a glove save the likes of which you seldom see. He was never out of position and played with complete poise,I felt confortable with him in goal and he made it look easy.

He would thrive here… I really would like to see him in goal this season, which raises some interesting ideas for down the road.

I liked Joey Crabb, he was flying all over The Scott Trade/Savvis/Kiel center sunday night, should have had at least one goal and send several Blues to the ice with hard checks…

It will be interesting…

By Chris

September 18, 2007 7:43 PM | Link to this

LAC-Pavelec doesn’t have any shot at making this team. He played juniors last year, for chrissake! Give him a year in Chicago and see what he does.

By Barry

September 18, 2007 8:14 PM | Link to this

Lot of the rookies looked good so far. Little was flying out there and has nice vision and passing ability. Maybe in a year or two White moves up to center Kozlov and Little centers Kovy with Sterling. Can you imagine the nice offensive threat a Kovy-(matured)Little-(established)Sterling line would be? I’m really hoping Popovic makes this team. I don’t see any reason he doesn’t. He’s played the PP and the PK in Chicago last year. He doesn’t take that many penalties really and even when he was up here last year he played solid D. Nothing flashy or that stands out, but he’s just solid I think. The defense last night seemed to be a little slow at times however. Seemed a couple of times Moose had to fend for himself for a couple of secs.

By Hip Czech

September 19, 2007 8:51 AM | Link to this

I guess Crabb didn’t get much of a look. The guy scores 2 the first game and is among the first cuts.

Have not heard much about Colin Stuart, does he have any shot to displace Slater?

My question on Rucchin is if/when he can go from ‘injured reserve’ to ‘physically unable to perform’? If he goes to the unable to perform status doesn’t that free up his salary?

By GaVaHokie

September 19, 2007 9:51 AM | Link to this

It is interesting that Crabb got cut in the first round after scoring 2 goals… it goes to show that regardless of how well you play, the coaches already have a pretty good idea of who they want.

I’m not saying Crabb makes the team, but he should have survived the first cuts.

By Thrashersfan33

September 19, 2007 10:33 AM | Link to this

While some people may thing that Crabb should not have been cut so quickly and view it as a negative move think about it this way. If the Thrashers know what they can get out of Crabb, send him down now which will give you more time to see the guys who you are not sure about. Then towards the end of camp and the resulting roster moves, cut some people who did not prove themselves and then bring Crabb back. Make sense?

By GaVaHokie

September 19, 2007 10:43 AM | Link to this

Make sense, yes… probability… slim.

By Midfield

September 19, 2007 10:57 AM | Link to this

Don’t forget that - apart from completing the roster - this is an exercise in creating the call-up list: you can bet on somebody to get scratched or injured now and then, can you? It very well may be that Crabb has put himself high on that one.

By kracker

September 19, 2007 12:07 PM | Link to this

Ruuchin’s contract doesn’t really affect the Thrash WRT the salary cap since the owners aren’t expected to spend anywhere near the cap. However, if he can be released or bought out somehow for less than the $2.4 million he’s owed, that might free up a million or so to spend on a player at the trade deadline.

Anyone know if there is any possibility of something like that happening? Or will the Thrash be paying full salary for an unable-to-play Rucchin ffor the entire year? Craig?

By Craig Custance

September 19, 2007 12:43 PM | Link to this

kracker — The money is guaranteed, so a release wouldn’t free up any money. And if you’re Rucchin, would you agree to a buyout?

By Brendan

September 19, 2007 1:02 PM | Link to this

This is a bit of a “shot in the dark,” but perhaps some of the players who survived these cuts are now being “showcased?”

Ummn Brendan, “showcased” in a preseason game? I clarified that it was a bit of stretch/hypothetical, didn’t I? Sheesh. We don’t know who Don is talking to or not talking to. (As if he’d tell us, right?) But maybe, just maybe, he wants another GM to take a look at some his prospects.

Folks, I sure hope that Pavelec isn’t “that prospect,” ifffffff such discussions are even taking place. I’m not saying that they are. I’d like Pavelec to stay. To point where he challenges Kari for starting job, which is probably at least a year away. At a minimum. Yes, Pavelec should get “seasoned” in the AHL this year. Next year, Lehtonen reaches restricted free agency (RFA). To move Pavelec before Lehtonen is re-signed is a mistake, in my opinion. For the record, Lehtonen-Pavelec ought to be the “1-2 punch” for the Thrashers in the coming years. Just not this year. Johan Hedberg is a wonderful backup. I hope Moose is “healthy” all year. (I won’t use the “I” word. That upsets people.) Things could get nervous for Moose at the trade deadline, however. We don’t know what our situation might be or what we might “need” at that time.

What if Pavelec has to be “called up” a mite early and performs well? I’m jus’ sayin’. Well, when Moose comes back, Pavelec gets sent down. But if some Western Conference team is “desperate” for a goaltender at the trade deadline, but is carrying either too many centers or blueliners, Don has some options, depending on how he feels about Pavelec’s readiness for the rest of the way and into the playoffs, as a backup. I said, “it was a stretch.” If I were a betting man, there’s no way “let’s rely on our Vets” Hartley and Waddell move Hedberg, unless they’re out of the playoff picture at the trade deadline. At that point, the “firesale” is on. But we’re gonna make the playoffs.

By Hip Czech

September 19, 2007 1:48 PM | Link to this

Craig, didn’t NJ have a somewhat similar situation with Mogilny last year? Weren’t they able to not count his salary against the cap because he was ‘physically unable to perform’, or something like that?

I know the Thrashers are comfortably under the cap…I’m just wondering if it is something Rucchin would have to agree to, or do they just need a medical opinion to declare him physically not fit?

By Brendan

September 19, 2007 1:58 PM | Link to this

Unless I’m wrong, while a player is on extended IR, his salary doesn’t count against the cap. However, he still gets paid. All NHL contracts are “guaranteed.”

When/if Rucchin returns, however, his salary counts against the cap. So, there’s a couple of things for management to consider. Number one, they’ve got to pay Rucchin, no matter what. Number two, if they sign another to take his place, that player also gets paid, guaranteed. So, if Rucchin comes back, now two players are being paid for what was initially one “center” position. And number three, both players salaries now count against the cap, when Rucchin returns.

At that point, certain things can be done to remedy the situation, like a trade, if you can find a willing partner. Placing a player on “waivers” who gets picked up by another team is another. There are more options, etc.

By Scott

September 19, 2007 2:43 PM | Link to this

Atlanta is without a doubt a hockey town. The team has really only had one good season and attendance has been good. I’m ready to go to blueland and watch the Thrashers play!

By Hip Czech

September 19, 2007 2:45 PM | Link to this

Looks like there will be a change in the schedule for next year:

schedule change proposal

I don’t have a problem with cutting back on the divisional games by one or two (probably would have to be two to keep an even number of games). I would rather play every team at least once.

Can someone with more intelligence than me explain Waddell’s logic in now voting for it?

By Brendan

September 19, 2007 3:13 PM | Link to this

Well Hip Czech, I don’t have any more intelligence than you, but I believe Waddell’s “rationale” was that he wanted the current system to come full-circle before abandoning it. Probably because this way, no one could claim to have been “short-changed” by the league’s scheduling policy.

It was, in essence, “equal to everyone.” It was meant to be a 3-year rotation. And that’s what will have transpired. So, it’d probably be better to change it NOW as opposed to a 4th year of the current scheduling plan. If I follow Waddell’s logic, he’d then argue, if you have it a 4th year, (think second 3-year cycle,) then go to 6-years, so that it remains consistent for every team.

Waddell’s position does make some sense. But, we know this current schedule didn’t please everyone. I do like the idea of seeing every team in the league come play here at least once every other year. It used to be that every team hosted every other team at least once per season. The league stepped in and thought, “This seems like a lot of unnecessary travel. Does Edmonton really need to play Florida twice a year? Is that a BIG geographic rivalry?” Okay, that’s my deduction of what happened. The league never actually said that.

By Kint

September 19, 2007 3:22 PM | Link to this

Random Note: The thrashers should pursue redden at some point whether its during the year or in the off-season. I think he would be a great fit in Atlanta and could easily be our number 1 d-man. He has been teammates with hossa before so maybe he would consider Atlanta.

Thoughts Anybody

By kracker

September 19, 2007 3:23 PM | Link to this

Thanks, Craig, Brendan….being that the money is 100% guaranteed, the only way the owners get relief from Rucch’s salary is by a trade (for a draft pic maybe) or a team claims him off waivers for half-salary with the Thrash paying half.

He has to be healthy enough to play for anything to happen though. The best option is for him to get healthy and play well at Philips of course.

By Hip Czech

September 19, 2007 3:33 PM | Link to this

Thanks Brendan…I’m, uh, hip.

Somehow I didn’t tie the three years of the collective bargaining agreement with the ending of the schedule rotation. That somewhat makes sense when you put those two together.

Is the salary cap structure that is in place also ending with this collective bargaining agreement?

I would like the chance to make a couple road trips to see the Thrashers…Nashville is a fairly easy drive and I have family in Columbus (wouldn’t you know the year the Thrashers finally play in Columbus it’s the day after Christmas when all my family is down here). It would be nice to make those trips more often than once every 3 years.

By kracker

September 19, 2007 3:46 PM | Link to this

Yeah, I think if they manage to find five games for the remaining opposite conf. teams to be played each year (home and/or away) everybody will be happy. I know I will.

By GaVaHokie

September 19, 2007 3:59 PM | Link to this

I think the less time the team has to travel to San Jose and Vancouver, the better… I’m happy with the way the schedule is.

Another angle on the Rucchin situation, if he’s deemed physically unable to play, doesn’t insurance kick in and pay his salary? So, not only would he not count towards the cap, but he wouldn’t even be paid out of the owner’s pockets… correct me if I’m wrong.

By Buzilla Baby Blues

September 19, 2007 4:26 PM | Link to this

I’m sure the Thrashers are insured on these contracts in case of injury. So I assume this Rucchin isn’t a total loss.

Lloyd of London Insurance perhaps.

By kracker

September 19, 2007 4:27 PM | Link to this

GaVaHokie, I was wondering about insurance too. So what’s up with that? I have no idea on how that may be structured. Anything that helps our owners pay for more talent is fine by me.

By Bob

September 19, 2007 4:46 PM | Link to this

Smart move, the schedule the way it is now is idiotic and kills ticket sales. Let’s see, we’re playing Carolina tonight, oops, here’s Carolina again next week, Carolina early next month, oh goodie, Carolina’s coming again on Friday.

Same goes with Tampa 4 times, Caps 4 times, Panthers 4 times. Enough already.

By Michael Shapiro

September 19, 2007 5:23 PM | Link to this

Hip Czech and GaVaHokie are right. Just think, if Joey Crabb hadn’t scored two goals he’d have been sent down farther than Chicago, like to Siberia or purgatory. Yeesh!

By Craig Custance

September 19, 2007 5:25 PM | Link to this

Bob — I agree, I think fans were getting fed up with the unbalanced schedule. Plus, now Sid the Kid can be showcased everywhere.

By Jameson

September 19, 2007 7:16 PM | Link to this

I was kind of surprised that Crabb got sent down this early, as well, but didn’t he take one or two Savard-like penalties? I’m also surprised we don’t have Holzapfel playing with a professional team this season.

By Thrashersfan33

September 19, 2007 7:53 PM | Link to this

I just have to say it has been awesome the last couple of days to log onto ajc.com and see so many new stories, blogs, etc. on the Thrashers page. Can’t wait for the season to start and the coverage to be even better than last year! Keep up the great work Craig.

By Tony C.

September 19, 2007 9:49 PM | Link to this

The way I understood it to work is that if the player is physically unable to perform (read play the game at an NHL/AHL level), then that player’s salary does not count against his team’s “Cap Number”.

In accordance with the CBA, the player’s salary is gauranteed.

This is the loophole that Cheap Lou in the Meadowlands found to get out from under Mogilny & Malakhov’s contracts next year.

I believe there is also a provision that the player in question cannot play in another league (Russian Super, Elite Seerien etc.) for the length of the NHL contract.

Ok sowhat’s the word on Haydar & Krog? aren’t they “NHL only” this year? Or is it just one of them?

Less than 21 days!

GO BLUE !!!

By Bob

September 19, 2007 11:10 PM | Link to this

More suprising good news out of Hartley. Moose or Kari, no clear #1. Lehtonen hasn’t shown he can handle it, I said all last year that was a problem when Hartley played him night after night. More Moose is good for the club.

By roh

September 20, 2007 7:59 AM | Link to this

I, too, am in the camp that believes Kovy deserves an ‘A’. I’ve watched him grow and mature as a player over the last couple of years and think he is ready for a leadership role. Giving him more responsibility on the team will help him settle down even more, I think.

And go MOOOOOOOSE!

By Hip Czech

September 20, 2007 8:05 AM | Link to this

Gee, Bourret got sent down to the minors. So much for him being the ‘steal’ he was made out to be from one Ranger fan’s post a while back.

I’m undecided about the goalie situation. I know there are a lot of Moose fans on this blog…but honestly, I think decent #2 goalies are a dime a dozen. This may be blasphemy, but Hedberg could be replaced by any number of guys next summer.

So I guess the real question is who the ‘future’ is, and do you trade whoever isn’t? Most of us have been crying for a top line center for some time, personally I guess I would have no problem with Lehtonen or Pavelec being traded for a good center (hello LA Kings…you need a goalie, we need one of your young centers!).

Either Lehtonen is the future and Hedberg can be replaced with another backup next year, or Pavelec is and Hedberg becomes the #1 if you trade Lehtonen.

By Sara

September 20, 2007 8:16 AM | Link to this

The scheduling was changed to the current format in an attempt to boost ticket sales. Typically the biggest rivalries in hockey/sports are geographic. So in theory our biggest rivals should be FLA, TB, WAS, and CAR. Since rivalry games are usually big draws, scheduling more of them should equate to more ticket sales. That was the rationale from the League. In reality, while there are some good rivalries within the divisions, I think most people also believe in too much of a good thing. Add in the complaints about not getting to see other teams and in particular about not getting to see some of the young studs. Ten sets of fans out West don’t get to see Ovechkin, or Crosby, or the Staals, or Malkin, etc, etc.

I’ll give the League credit for trying something different to boost sales, but in this case it didn’t pan out. And really, for non-STH fans, are you more likely to shell out money to see TB for the 3rd or 4th (or maybe even 2nd) time this season, or to see Detroit or Dallas once?

As for the Rucchin situation…I would say some of you have hit on the biggest factor - it isn’t about the cap, it’s about the cash flow. And that cash has to flow regardless of whether Rucchin’s on the ice or not. I know insurance will pick up at some point - some of Yashin’s money w/ NYI was picked up by insurance - but I would bet that there has to be a long-term injury and the criteria for determining that are likely stringent. We are talking about insurance companies here - they don’t like to pay unless they absolutely have to and especially when you’re talking about seven digits to the left of the decimal. Even if Spirit can convince an insurance agency to pick up the tab, it’s more likely to be down the road and a retro-active type of pay-out. Which doesn’t do them any good right now.

Lastly, I am quite pleased with the goalie situation as it currently stands. We don’t need any more of Bob’s riding a goalie to death. That said, I have a feeling that a lot of this is posturing to try and put pressure on and motivate Kari. Hartley dropped that remark about Pavelec a little too casually if you ask me. If Kari thinks his job not only this year but in future years is on the line, he may be more apt to play out of his mind. And in reality, with Pavelec getting closer to readiness - like potentially next season - and Kari up for a new contract next season, it really kind of is put up or shut up time for him. He’s been good, but in reality he needs to be consistently spectacular. We don’t have a strong enough D to make up for mediocre/average goaltending - more’s the pity.