Just say no to the buyouts this year
View Single Post
05-04-2011, 01:35 AM
Sent to HF Minors
Join Date: May 2007
I brought up Campbell and Drury because they were seen as premier UFAs in their offseasons. It's not that they failed. That's not the important thing here. Even if Drury did not fail, he would still be massively overpaid.
Look at Gomez. He came to the Rangers and immediately had his second-best offensive output of his career. Yet, everyone still hated the signing, hated Gomez, hated Sather for signing Gomez, and everyone wanted to trade him away as soon as possible... all that while Gomez was having his second-best season.
That's because any premier UFA is so badly overpaid that even if he plays well (as compared to his career), he'll still be overpaid. But what if Gomez were better, you ask? If he were a better player in his career, then he would get another million or more when he signed. Why? Because if he were better, when the Rangers offered him $7.3, another team would offer him more.
Signing a UFA, by definition, means that you pay a player so much that every other team in the league say, "to hell with this, if he's going to make this much, then he's not worth it, even if I can get him for free, without surrendering any assets."
29 out of 30 GMs must say that the money is too much for them.
This is not true for lesser players because there is a large supply of them. But when it's THE premier free agent, then all teams or nearly all teams would want him free of charge so long as he's not terribly overpaid.
LA Kings, as just one example, don't really need a guy like Brad Richards, but don't you think they would take him for free if he weren't overpaid? Come on!
Vanek's signing is important to show how much some teams are willing to pay.
The fact is that there will always be a team willing to pay more than $6, more than $7 and likely more than $8 for the services of a true first line player and if that team is on the verge of contending, it makes sense.
If let's say MDZ had a breakthrough season and played as well as Mike Green, and Wolski had come here and suddenly played to the maximum of his talent, scoring 30+ goals this year, I would say, yeah, let's sign Brad no matter the cost. Why? Because then he'd be the final piece and with him, we would have a chance to win the Cup.
There are teams like that around the NHL. There are teams that are truly one player away from contending.
Detroit, for instance, can certainly use a first line center. They are an aging, but still good team, and this would be a good time for them to take their final stab at things.
Even a team like New Jersey would be better suited to bid for his services if they can afford to max out their cap. They will get Parise back, Kovalchuk will likely recover from a bad season, and if you add Brad Richards to center either one of them, that teams becomes very, very dangerous right away. Plus, the Rangers must hope that Brad has chemistry with Gabby, whereas the Debbies can say, "if not Parise, then with Kovalchuk, but one of them should work out, double the odds of chemistry here." And plus, since Brodeur is about to retire, it makes all the sense in the world to take one final stab at it now because when he's gone, they are done as a contender for a while.
There are several teams out there which better suited to throw whatever it takes to sign Richards. The teams I brought up were just the first that popped into my head, but certainly, almost any team would want Brad if he's not overpaid, and many teams are in better position to overpay him than we are. If we outbid them, you won't like the terms.
It will likely be either $8+ million for a half a dozen years or else it will include a no-trade clause ... or both.
Last edited by Beacon: 05-04-2011 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Beacon