View Single Post
07-02-2008, 11:31 PM
Join Date: Apr 2007
Originally Posted by
Actually I would be onside in specific circumstances. If he was used as a #7 d-man, if he made only 700k a year (but will he? UFA defensemen salaries are so inflated this summer), I think it would be reasonable. He would be good insurance in case of injuries (probably a step up over Rourke last year anyways) and as you say would provide a steadying influence on our young D corps.
That being said though, with the youth movement on the team, I suspect the coaching would prefer to give the position to either Peckham or Roy, and it's hard to argue with that. Both guys are younger and have more long term potential with the team. That being the case, Warrener would probably be unnecessary.
I think it's not unreasonable to expect that Warrener at this stage will take anything he will be offered. 700K might get it done. #7 means he won't play many games, barring another major string of injuries. I don't what's harm in that. Even with the youth movement we need some older players to help the kids to get to the next level. And none of the veteran d-men we have have been great physical defensive d-men. What is Souray going to teach Peckham or Smid--how to become the anti-hero of highlight reel goals?
I think the risk in bringing Warrener at a low price for one year is close to zero.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by tiger_80