View Single Post
06-28-2011, 04:22 PM
Registered User
JimmyDarmody's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 616
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
Why don't you look at the bigger picture, instead of sitting there with tunnel vision fixated on something ********.

Hammer can still play and has decent mobility, good 5 on 5. Two years of him gives us time to develop Emelin, Weber, Subban and other d prospects. Gill and Spacek both come off the books next year, and so would Hammer, which would be not good for the re-working of the defense.

Every single contending team has stop-gaps and experience on the back end, EVERY SINGLE ONE. It really is remarkable the irrational dislike for experienced journeymen on this board, they are invaluable to the durability and consistency of a playoff NHL club.

Swapping Hammer for Spacek, and adding another year, is a move in the right direction. But continue to look at the ages of players, like that is the only indicator of strength(in your delusional mind).
35+ contracts are one of the biggest handicaps you can give yourself. There is zero, and I mean absolutely zero, reason to give Hammer a multi-year deal instead of a one year deal. Whatever amount you might save (500k?) offering him a couple of years pales in comparison to the ability to a) re-evaluate his role on a year-to-year basis, b) have the flexibility mid-season to bury him if he plays his way out of the lineup or if a trade opportunity comes up, and c) protect yourself if Hammer decides to hang them up at a moments notice.

If we were that concerned about saving 500k we would of sent Laraque to Wheeling rather than do him the favor of buying him out.

Journeymen are what they are, the moment you start giving them term on their contracts is when they stop being journeymen and start posing the risk for problems down the road.

JimmyDarmody is offline