View Single Post
Old
05-02-2010, 06:36 PM
  #28
PredsV82
Puckaroni and cheese
 
PredsV82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Outside
Country: Scotland
Posts: 14,289
vCash: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkMM View Post
No argument here, my point is that by signing him to a long-term deal, Nashville preserves the flexibility of what to do down the road.

1.) If you can keep both Weber and Suter, then you can trade Hamhuis because he's on a good cap-deal and get assets back in return (unlike if you let him walk now).

2.) If you can't keep both Weber and Suter, you've got Hamhuis in your back-pocket to keep your top two defensemen respectable.

3.) By back-loading the deal, you can sign him for this year without going over-budget, and only worry about his pay-raises when Arnott comes off the books and you have to start choosing between Suter and Weber.

By not doing this, you not only lose Hamhuis for nothing this year, you also run the risk of not having back-up options down the road if things get sticky with Weber/Suter.
problem is if you backload his deal and he gets hurt or underperforms, nobody will take him off our hands at 5 million per year, then we are stuck with him, and that would cripple us.

I think poile has a pretty good idea of whether he can keep suter and weber and how much its going to cost. Having Hamuis only as a fallback is too risky a contingency plan. Honestly if we lose either Weber or Suter the best thing to do is replace them with a youngster who is coming up and spend the 6 mil we would have spent on Webs or Suter on some scoring.

PredsV82 is offline   Reply With Quote