Cleary is NOT joining the Flyers?

[fanaticV3.0]

I have been trying to figure this out. It is a mess.  What does this mean?

 

1) Couterier is on the trading block and they want an all-purpose forward;

2) Talbot is seen as a spent force and they want a tougher alternative;

3) Homer has little faith in his youngsters.

 

The whole thing makes not sense and leaves me feeling strange.

 

Peace,

 

Howie

 

Woh, woh, woh there. Making a play for Dan Cleary does not indicate we're trading away the youth. Cleary is a nice role player and has some good leadership skills, but he's not nor he should be expected to replace what the youth is expected to be. It's very obvious what the logic behind it is. They turned the team over to the youth last year and that didn't pan out. That not panning out does not mean we're "done with" the youth, it simply means they want to give them some veterans to guide them along.

 

This circus around his contract is ridiculous, and I'm not trying to rationalize or explain it, but clarifying that going after a veteran role players does not indicate you have given up on the youth.

[fanaticV3.0]

Look at the bright side, maybe we can afford to keep Gagne now. Yippee!

[brelic]

I wonder how much of this is just sloppy reporting... saying things without double confirmation, for example. Maybe I watch too much Newsroom, but it's not like the Wings or Flyers are issuing press releases about this stuff. It's slightly informed speculation on the part of the media.

[Lindbergh31]

Look at the bright side, maybe we can afford to keep Gagne now. Yippee!

That's if Gagne still wants to sign with the Flyers and for how much.

[radoran]

I wonder how much of this is just sloppy reporting... saying things without double confirmation, for example. Maybe I watch too much Newsroom, but it's not like the Wings or Flyers are issuing press releases about this stuff. It's slightly informed speculation on the part of the media.

 

"sloppy reporting"?

 

Like Cleary telling a paper directly "I'm going to Philly"?

 

Cleary, who had played for the Wings since 2005, remained hopeful to stay in Detroit, but told the Free Press shortly before midnight that “I’m going to Philly.”

[fan4ever]

@brelic

 

I also think I saw something on the Flyers official website about Cleary but only a PTO..

 

You may be onto something but I think Cleary is clearly working the system to his advantage.

 

I wonder why Gags is not at camp though.

[jammer2]

@brelic  Helen St.James, the hockey writer at the Detroit Free Press is a quality reporter. I don't think she would have attributed a quote to Cleary that he did not say. Been reading her for years and have never seen an accuracy problem with her quotes.

[radoran]

I wonder why Gags is not at camp though.

 

Not invited?

[mojo1917]

If Cleary makes the team and signs here, okay , if not... again okay, i like the guys we have for the 3rd line role, i  like Talbot better .

Dan's a warrior and would be a good addtion but truthfully he's not making or breaking our season. 

We have some veteran guys that were out with broken things last year, this year is a clean slate, i am not of the opinon that this team needs more of what Cleary brings.

Edited September 12, 2013 by mojo1917

[King Knut]

Wow you're in a comfortably analytic mood aren't you? Crank down the cranky factor... It's only September.

Signing Bryz wasn't a bad idea. Signing him for a millennium at a billion and a half per... That was foolish.

Once ou've realized you've done something foolish, the more foolish choice would be to do NOTHING corrective about it when given the chance. Thus, I say dumping Bryz was the wisest choice of action and in my mind makes Homer look less foolish than keeping him (the other option at the time) bDo you really disagree with that or are you jut being a PITA because it give you a buzz?

As far as Cleary and his agent go, I have to assume that a deal was in place and about to be signed or else homer would not have talked about it. Why doninassume that? history. It's not as if he's known to talk about deals that aren't real... In fact he's far more likely to lie and pretend legit deals aren't developing. The man obfuscates and lies trying to hide just about every deal he's ever done until after the ink is dry and the name is stitched Ono the sweater. But Cleary is different because you're crabby today? Is that it?

You're right, Cleary's agent doesn't look bad if he got him a deal to stay in Detroit, but he's a sneaky bastard and has damaged his ability to make good faith deals with other general managers around the league for the rest on his clients. So good on him. The other option is that he was foolish and didn't disclose (or understand) to Cleary the nature of the deal he arranged. Either way, it doesn't really reflect in any way on homer IMHO.

Clearly (yeah i made that joke) Homer thought they ha a deal and Clearly it was either just leverage against the wings or the agent screwed up on behalf of his client and made a deal the client don't want.

It was a bad deal anyway, so wtf cares?

Now go take a midol and cheer up.

Giroux playing golf... That was foolish. This is just a bunch if us needing some drama before training camp starts. We avoided another bad deal paying too much for a guy who was not likely to finish the season.

Having someone who scores in the playoffs would have been nice with Danny B north of the border, but making them is kinda key too.

The Bryz buyout was the smartest thing Homer has done since.... Homer signed Bryz to a nine-year, no-movement-clause, $51M deal?

Cleary's agent looks foolish? Cleary's agent apparently just got Cleary exactly what he wanted - a deal with the Red Wings.

Homer? Homer was walking around telling everyone yesterday that Cleary was going to be in camp this morning.

Cleary, of course, was not in camp.

But, hey, Homer did get good deal for Richards and Crater just after signing them to decade-long deals and promising them they would be the foundation of the franchise.

So, that's something anyway...

[murraycraven]

I guess I don't see what all of the vitriol is about surrounding this debacle honestly.  Maybe I am just blind or numb to this type of thing with the Flyers.   Homer offered Cleary a contract and was told he accepted... this was reported by multpile sources so I have to believe a deal was in place.  

 

Now, you can argue the actual contract (term and lenght, NMC) all you want and I have no problem with that...

 

But if Homer was told Cleary is going to be in camp and his agent and/or Cleary went back on their word I would put the blame on them.   It appears they are the ones that are the issue here.  Homer offered a contract, which was accepted, and they went back on their word.   I think this is being blown out of proportion a bit.  

 

Again, you can argue the contract that was offered but otherwise I think the issue is with Cleary's camp. 

[brelic]

@brelic  Helen St.James, the hockey writer at the Detroit Free Press is a quality reporter. I don't think she would have attributed a quote to Cleary that he did not say. Been reading her for years and have never seen an accuracy problem with her quotes.

@jammer2 @radoran

Ah my bad... I didn't see that quote.

Carry on!

[radoran]

We avoided another bad deal paying too much for a guy who was not likely to finish the season.

 

"Another bad deal" that is "paying too much for a guy" that obviously wasn't the fault of the person who made the offer?

 

If nothing else, now we can just wait around for the next "bad deal" that "pays too much for a guy".

 

Do you have any midol to spare?

[radoran]

I guess I don't see what all of the vitriol is about surrounding this debacle honestly.  Maybe I am just blind or numb to this type of thing with the Flyers.   Homer offered Cleary a contract and was told he accepted... this was reported by multpile sources so I have to believe a deal was in place.  

 

Now, you can argue the actual contract (term and lenght, NMC) all you want and I have no problem with that...

 

But if Homer was told Cleary is going to be in camp and his agent and/or Cleary went back on their word I would put the blame on them.   It appears they are the ones that are the issue here.  Homer offered a contract, which was accepted, and they went back on their word.   I think this is being blown out of proportion a bit.  

 

Again, you can argue the contract that was offered but otherwise I think the issue is with Cleary's camp. 

 

OK, but Homer said there was no deal, there were no promises, that Cleary was in the same situation Hal Gill is in. If we're going to take at face value what Cleary said in the media (that there was a deal) do we not take what Homer said (that there was not) at face value as well?

 

I think there's more than enough "blame" to go around in this situation. Nobody looks good, but Cleary apparently got what he wanted out of the deal.

 

In the end, I'm relieved to not have a $2.75M, 34-year-old third line winger with gammy knees and a NTC for the next three years.

[Mad Dog]

Like someone else said, I am not too concerned or upset to have missed out on Cleary.  If anything, I am even releived we didn't embark in yet another proxibitieve contract with a NTC thrown out a third-line player, who sounds a bit broken down at this stage in his career anyway.

 

But what this did it made Homer looked like an idiot.  This whole thing really looks to me like yet another example of him flying by the seat of his pants.  He saw some player possibly becoming available and just jumped in without having done any homework.  And this time I very much doubt Snider had anything to do with this; this would be too small of a potato for Snider to be involved.  It was all Homer.  The guy is devoid of rudimentary basics of planning, developing a strategy, and being capable of following on with that strategy.  Sad...

Edited September 12, 2013 by Mad Dog

[brelic]

OK, but Homer said there was no deal, there were no promises, that Cleary was in the same situation Hal Gill is in. If we're going to take at face value what Cleary said in the media (that there was a deal) do we not take what Homer said (that there was not) at face value as well?

 

I think there's more than enough "blame" to go around in this situation. Nobody looks good, but Cleary apparently got what he wanted out of the deal.

 

In the end, I'm relieved to not have a $2.75M, 34-year-old third line winger with gammy knees and a NTC for the next three years.

That's a fair point. If we take Cleary at face value, we need to take Homer at face value in the absence of any contrary evidence.

Cleary has more to gain in this bamboozle than Homer does.

[jammer2]

  For those who missed it in the shoutbox, Dan Cleary to Wings, contract to be signed tonight per Helen St.James of the Detroit Free Press...

 

 http://www.freep.com/article/20130912/SPORTS05/309120099/detroit-red-wings-daniel-cleary

[fanaticV3.0]

I guess I don't see what all of the vitriol is about surrounding this debacle honestly.  Maybe I am just blind or numb to this type of thing with the Flyers.   Homer offered Cleary a contract and was told he accepted... this was reported by multpile sources so I have to believe a deal was in place.  

 

Now, you can argue the actual contract (term and lenght, NMC) all you want and I have no problem with that...

 

But if Homer was told Cleary is going to be in camp and his agent and/or Cleary went back on their word I would put the blame on them.   It appears they are the ones that are the issue here.  Homer offered a contract, which was accepted, and they went back on their word.   I think this is being blown out of proportion a bit.  

 

Again, you can argue the contract that was offered but otherwise I think the issue is with Cleary's camp. 

 

I'm with you I agree with every single point you made. I think this isn't worth the energy to get upset over. I would have liked him over Gagne even though the rumored numbers were too high. I'm not upset we didn't get him and think people who didn't want him, but are still upset anyway just want to bitch about Homer.

[murraycraven]

OK, but Homer said there was no deal, there were no promises, that Cleary was in the same situation Hal Gill is in. If we're going to take at face value what Cleary said in the media (that there was a deal) do we not take what Homer said (that there was not) at face value as well?

 

I think there's more than enough "blame" to go around in this situation. Nobody looks good, but Cleary apparently got what he wanted out of the deal.

 

In the end, I'm relieved to not have a $2.75M, 34-year-old third line winger with gammy knees and a NTC for the next three years.

I get your point but what if Homer did not offer a contract?  Face values says (from Homer) that he is only on a PTO.  Maybe the Cleary camp "leaked" false information to pressure the Red Wings.  I cant believe that Cleary left all that money on the table to stay in Detroit.  He only got 1.7M for one year... 

 

I would like to believe he is a really good guy and loyal but if that is true he is loyal to a fault.   He left a ton of $$ on the table if this were all true - which I still think is very speculative.  

[radoran]

I get your point but what if Homer did not offer a contract?  Face values says (from Homer) that he is only on a PTO.  Maybe the Cleary camp "leaked" false information to pressure the Red Wings.  I cant believe that Cleary left all that money on the table to stay in Detroit.  He only got 1.7M for one year... 

 

I would like to believe he is a really good guy and loyal but if that is true he is loyal to a fault.   He left a ton of $$ on the table if this were all true - which I still think is very speculative.  

 

It is amusing (disappointing?) that a three-year, $2.75M per deal with a NTC for a 34-year-old just sounded like a eminently plausible Homeresque deal...

[touche22]

Well, I think we got Lindros on such a technicality. Maybe we can get the same arbitrator.

Who is kidding who? Homer tried his best to handcuff himself with this deal but was saved by the " selfishness" of the player.

[Howie58]

Woh, woh, woh there. Making a play for Dan Cleary does not indicate we're trading away the youth. Cleary is a nice role player and has some good leadership skills, but he's not nor he should be expected to replace what the youth is expected to be. It's very obvious what the logic behind it is. They turned the team over to the youth last year and that didn't pan out. That not panning out does not mean we're "done with" the youth, it simply means they want to give them some veterans to guide them along.

 

This circus around his contract is ridiculous, and I'm not trying to rationalize or explain it, but clarifying that going after a veteran role players does not indicate you have given up on the youth.

Fanatic:

 

I don't think we would be trading away youth wholesale, but I could envision a trade for a top D or prospective D where we had to give to get. When this bizarre sequence started, I had a feeling he was viewed as a relatively cheap replacement for one of our younger folks. He might have been a good add. I guess we will never know. And I am not too unhappy.

 

Best,

 

Howie

[fanaticV3.0]

Fanatic:

 

I don't think we would be trading away youth wholesale, but I could envision a trade for a top D or prospective D where we had to give to get. When this bizarre sequence started, I had a feeling he was viewed as a relatively cheap replacement for one of our younger folks. He might have been a good add. I guess we will never know. And I am not too unhappy.

 

Best,

 

Howie

 

 

If that is what they did, I agree it would be incredibly stupid. But I was saying signing Cleary does not mean they were giving up on the youth. It's not a one or the other situation. You can have both younger and veteran players on the team at the same time.

[flyercanuck]

Well, I think we got Lindros on such a technicality. Maybe we can get the same arbitrator.

Who is kidding who? Homer tried his best to handcuff himself with this deal but was saved by the " selfishness" of the player.

 

Selfishness? He took a 1 year $1.75 million deal over a 3 year $8.25 million one. Loyal maybe, not selfish.

[Leach27]

Selfishness? He took a 1 year $1.75 million deal over a 3 year $8.25 million one. Loyal maybe, not selfish.

This is not all homers fault, cleary had a hand in this. He should have been more careful in his decision making, at least try to be a professional. I'm glad we didn't get him though.