View Single Post
06-19-2008, 03:06 PM
Registered User
Joey's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,080
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Joey
Originally Posted by Squeaky View Post
Shanahan was a different player. For one thing, he never had the wheels Rolston has now. That matters a lot for guys who are getting up there in years, imo. If Rolston loses a step, he's still fast enough to play. The other thing to keep in mind is Shanny was only playing 16:30 a night his last year in Detroit, while Rolston is still logging 20+. Shanny was also 37 when he signed with the Rangers, so he was two years older. Also, if you give Rolston 4 years, he'll be 39 at the end of the contract, not 40.

That said, you're right that nothing is guaranteed when you're dealing with guys who are getting into their late 30s. But I think the signs are a lot better for Rolston now than they were for Shanahan back then.

Shanny only played 16:30 a night? Well that was the year he popped in 40. So it just further shows how fast a player can slip, he might've popped 50 if he played 20+...but this isn't about Shanny

I just feel strongly that the money Rolston gets, from any team, will be much more than he's worth by the end of his contract if it should exceed 3 years. I'm all for signing him at 1 or 2 years, but it's way too risky beyond that point, especially with guys like Price, Sergei, Tomas, all warranting new contracts which will likely see them make much more than they are now. You give Rolston 5m for 4 years? Well, you could *potentially* have to say goodbye to a great young Hab down the line as a result. It's not guaranteed the cap will keep rising, there's still a possibility it could lower in years to come, and there's no guarantee a 38 or 39 year old will still be worth his price tag that he was offered nearly half a decade before. offering him 4 years is high-risk/low reward

Joey is offline