View Single Post
Old
07-31-2008, 03:35 PM
  #20
SPG
Registered User
 
SPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Utica, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,945
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forechecker View Post
He's actually played well in earlier years, the team in front of him just stunk up the joint.

Rags, I guess it's nice deal for both sides, but there's something about these middle of the road deals that seem like they backfire. The potential for animosity on both sides seems to be the greatest with these. When expectations are murky, and I do believe that contracts help to set expectations, the conversation tends to become "PL: well, I took $XXMM over Y years because I was being a team guy, so now I want that plus 100%. GM: Well, you didn't lead the team the way we though so we'll give you that plus 10%".

Sometimes the bold deal/statememt, in either direction, is the better avenue. In this case it's sort of "meh, we like you, but not enough to pay you on par with the top in the league nor do we have the confidence in you to earn the big deal by signing a one year deal with the potential payout in the end." From Leclaire's view it reads "wow, I got some security, because I don't believe I can earn the big reward contract by taking the risky one year deal". Or something to that effect.
He only had 59 career NHL games played before this season... and in the season where he played the most of those games (2006-07), his save % was less than .900. I'm sure the team he played for had something to do with that, but not enough to justify paying him $5M/year. This is a fair contract, and it's only three years, so he'll get his money if he keeps it up.

SPG is offline   Reply With Quote