View Single Post
05-13-2011, 11:53 AM
Vito Andolini
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 923
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
As you indicated, Brashear's cap hit was minimal in terms of overall dollars, not really the type of contract to hamstring you with the cap (and in hindsight, it didn't). Also, look at the Nylander situation. He was seeking multi-year deal and the Rangers wanted no part in that, and Washington foolishly handed out an awful contract for a player who has spent the last 2 seasons playing some games in Finland and the AHL. If Sather wasn't interested in Jagr's services, he would not have been offering him a 1 year deal + bonuses.
No, Brashear's contract didn't hamstring, but it also didn't show me a GM that was afraid to hand out multi year deals to aging players.

Regarding Nylander...I haven't seen any reports of Jagr wanting the kind of long-term deal that Nylander got. If it's true he wanted a 4 year deal, then I can understand the thinking behind letting him go, but I haven't seen it. And let's not confuse the situations here...Jagr was the most talented player on the roster, he was the captain, his contract was a dream, and he was huge in the playoffs. A 1 year + bonuses contract is a slap in the face for a player like Jagr. He wasn't a 42 year Mark Messier playing year to year.

The facts as I see them is that Jagr's days were numbered as soon as Gomez & Drury were signed. The money tied up in Gomez, Drury, Lundqvist & Redden (assuming he'd still be signed) was about $28M, while the cap was approx $56M. 50% invested in 4 players. There was no cash left over to sign Jagr to a reasonable contract and that's why Sather didn't really have serious interest.

Vito Andolini is offline   Reply With Quote