This puts their current salary expenditure at about 67.5 million with a 23 man roster. I expect they will roll with 22 for most of the year, which should put them around 1 million below their season budget of 68 million. This will allow them to add a player now, and/or to add a player later on in the season.
Which begs the question - now that they have [Ceci](http://www.hockeysfuture.com/prospects/cody_ceci/) locked up and are below budget, will they pursue another bottom pairing DMan? Borowiecki/Claesson/Kostka are not an ideal 6/7/8 crew - all should ideally be one spot lower on the depth chart. At the very least, I think we need to shore up that #7 spot with a more dependable player.
I feel like they should have stressed term.
Ceci will now expire and make money while the Sens still have Methot/Dion/Karlsson under contract (unless Methot gets snagged by Vegas). Up front they will still have Ryan, Brassard, MacArthur and Hoffman signed. They will be handing out new contracts to Stone, Turris and Ceci (as well as a goalie potentially) all at the same time.
But it's also a typical "prove it" contract for a player who has potential but hasn't really shined to this point in his career. Deals like this seem to be fairly common for that purpose rather than for the purpose of trading him.
It's possible it's changed under the new regime but Ceci is an Ottawa darling, he's local, played for the 67's and now he's on the Sens if there's one guy other than Karlsson they want to excel and keep in Ottawa long term it's probably Ceci.
Maybe someone like Matt Dumba is a contract made to trade not because they don't like him but because of expansion concerns and even then I think it was more of a traditional bridge deal than ground work for a trade.
I just hope it doesn't hurt them. They need to be as best as possible for Battles of Ontario in the playoffs.
The 3D senator is a much better logo than anything else they have on the table. The "O" seems weak as an identifying logo.
Much prefer the centurion jerseys to any =0=. Granted, no one else in the league does horizontal bars like the O jerseys, but the centurion is immediately distinctive and iconic. Heritage jersey is dope, but it should be an alternate and the updates 2d Sens logo should be the Home/Away.
Fun fact I'm pretty sure the founder of the NY Rangers was nicknamed "Tex", so the team started being referred to as "Tex's Rangers" as a joke until it officially stuck.
And come on, what does a star have to do with Dallas? Texas baby.
All the other ones are good points.
When you consider the overall scoring trend in the league it's just that much more impressive. What a player.
Also it's not like Ottawa is some sort of offensive juggernaut either.
We're 5th in the league in goals for. He's been on the ice for 109 goals forced this year (all situations). The Senators have scored 199 goals this year. That means he's on the ice for 54.7% of their goals for while only playing 48.5% of the minutes (at 29:07 TOI/g - obviously the word "only" in that last sentence is relative).
Take away the goals EK65 had the goal or primary assist on (let's pretend those second assists aren't as important) and we'd be 29th in the league, ahead of only New Jersey, and behind even the Toronto Marlies.
Let's pretend we replaced EK65 with another decent but not outstanding offensive defenseman, and that guy replaced 70% of Karlsson's on-ice production. (a generous amount, imo)
The senators would have scored 175 goals, tied with Columbus for the 22nd least in the league, and would probably have even more goals scored against us, as Karlsson despite the haters is pretty good in his zone.
We would have a GF/GA ratio of 0.80, the worst in the league, behind Edmonton (0.81), Toronto (0.81), Arizona (0.88), Calgary (0.88), and Buffalo (0.89).
In short, the Ottawa Senators are a lottery team with any other defenseman other than Erik Karlsson in that spot. That example is with a guy who creates 70% as much offense, so like a Kris Letang, for example....if you replaced Karlsson with like an average UFA signing like James Wisniewski for example, the Sens are likely a historically bad team this year.
People like to mention doughty for Norris, but if you swapped Doughty for Letang the kings would still be one of the leagues best teams. The Sens would be running away with the best lotto odds.
My husband and I live way below our means. I come from a middle class family and have lived on a really meager salary for years when I lived abroad and when I went back to school.
When I married him, my mindset stayed the same.
That meant no expensive baby showers like in the States, or funny nursery porjects to dig into our budget. It was a straight forward plan with clear goals.
As soon as we got married, we followed the old and outdated (but useful to us) advice to live on the husband's earnings and use the wife's (mine) as "bonus" money (for capital investments or luxuries) because it would be expected to disappear once I got pregnant.
It worked for us because my husband did outearn me by about 2x, and by choice we have pretty traditional division of labor.
So we used my earnings to minimize our future expenses - we made a big downpayment on our property to minimize our monthly cost, we bought cars that would last and paid for them outright, etc.
We didn't save up a lot of extra cash for babies.
Though if you are in the good ol' USA be sure to budget appropriately for labor and delivery. It is IN-SANE what some families have to pay for a hospital birth.
After my first I ended up working about 1/3 time for a couple years, just to get out of the house. I expected to be a SAHM for the first 5 years or so - homemaking plus continuing to do the bookkeeping for my husband's business.
What happened is that it sort of became perminate.
From experience the first time around, the money I saved s by being at home is almost as much as I was making anyhow - more food grown/cooked at home, on-call for husband's business, cloth diapers (because I have time to do all that laundry), no daycare bill, plus ditching work expenses for me (gas, clothes, food).
I'm lucky in that we've always been able to more or less mindlessly save money for our entire marriage. A decent portion goes into retirement accounts, but our "emergency fund" at this point could last us a year at our current lifestyle.
We budget $150 a month. Since the beginning of December I've spent $450 ish, $250 of which was ski lift tickets for myself and 3 others. The skiing can be under health and fitness though if you were being creative.
Netflix and cineplex takes the rest of it mostly.
But we also classify beer under food/drinks too. And we paid ahead for our NHL game centre months ago, so that isn't included either. But I just canceled my son's WoW subscription. Dining out is also under my food/drinks category and we do it maybe twice a month.
I think we've spent $1,900 on Food and Dining since Dec. Most of it eating out as a family, maybe with my oldest son's girlfriend coming along. I budget $420 a month, and typically go over it by around $10-$50. Especially during the Dec-Feb time frame.
A lot of birthday and Christmas dinners to attend.
My brother and his family have it good. Their budget looks like this:
$7.99 for Netflix.
Food out? My sister-in-law works in restaurant and brings home Thai food everyday.
Books and DVDs from library.
Taking walks and phone photography. Cooking at home.
Together they make good money, but they are happy simple. Still In the past it was the opposite for each of them before we met.