View Single Post
10-23-2011, 08:01 PM
Registered User
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 10,854
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
They aren't similar situations at all because you're ignoring the team's philosophies. Detroit does not believe in spending big money on goalies. They were never going to sign him or Vokoun to a large deal. Washington is fine with their goalies. It's their defense and coaching that comes under fire.

Anyone who understands the concept of supply and demand knew the Flyers could have signed Vokoun for cheap. Many of us here predicted it. We didn't pull it out of thin air. There simply wasn't any demand on the market for goaltending. You can create as many fantasy situations as you want. It doesn't mean they were going to happen in reality.
And the Flyers philosophy is that spending big on goaltending is the way to go? Give me a break. Until Bryz, any fan of the Red Wings or Caps or any other team in the league would have been saying the same thing about us.

There is absolutely no reason that another team couldnt have swooped in and signed Bryzgalov or Vokoun. All it takes is one GM to have interest and your whole "supply and demand" argument folds over like a cheap tent.

One GM could have shown interest in upgrading their goaltending situation and the Flyers would have no longer had a bargain on Vokoun...

They played it safe and allowed no room to not sign their guy.

It's not as simple as saying the contract will be a success it if we just win one Cup. What if the Flyers win the Cup this season, but then Bryzgalov goes on to be the next DiPietro over the next 8 seasons? Are you telling me no one will complain about the contract over the remaining 8 seasons just because we won one Cup? What if we win a cup within the first 3 or 4 seasons and then Bryz declines and is a below average goalie for the remaining 5? What if we can't afford to keep a Giroux, Schenn, or Couturier in the future? Would people be happy with an aging goalie we're stuck with just because we won a Cup? I don't think so. The fact is Bryzgalov is unlikely to ever live up to a 9 year deal because we signed him through his decline years.
"Bad contract" is the most overused term in hockey. Getting rid of one is not as difficult as people make it out to be, but even then, the chance that this contract actually hinders our ability to re-sign Giroux, Schenn or Couturier in the future is minuscule and completely ignores the possibility that Bryzgalov could very well still be playing like a 5.6m goalie in 3-4 years.

And considering Bryzgalov is two weeks into his deal, there is no reason to label it a "bad contract", let alone an "epic failure" yet. Maybe it will become one, but it is not one yet.

The fact that you are deeming it as such this early just shows your narrow mindedness. Like I said, your preconceptions make this a discussion that is clearly not worth having. You are not looking at this contract with an open mind. You have your own misguided notion of what could/should have happened and that is clouding your judgment.

I'm not proclaiming this contract to be a good one or that it will be a success. I'm just saying that the logic behind the deal is certainly justifiable and has very good chance for success (with equal chance for failure as Bryzgalov ages).

hockeyfreak7 is offline