View Single Post
Old
01-03-2012, 01:19 PM
  #53
Dfence033
Registered User
 
Dfence033's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAGLine View Post
We don't need another 6+ mil player. We especially don't need one when we don't know what's going to happen with the salary cap. We're one of the youngest teams in the league and we're in 1st place in the entire league. We have many players who will continue to get better as they get older, players we may not be able to keep if we were to sign Parise.

Parise would be a luxury. A very expensive luxury that we really can't afford.
Every year it's the same story as to what's going to happen with the salary cap. And every year the result is the same. The NHLPA will NOT allow the salary cap to remain stagnant, much less decrease. It's not in their interests to just let that happen, not without significant rollbacks in salaries that include teams paying those salaries upfront to cover the losses at bare minimum. The small market teams that reducing the cap would benefit would end up forking over millions of dollars upfront to cover a rollback, ensuring that if it got that far, a vote would surely be turned down.

As for needing another $6 mil + player, true, the Rangers don't NEED one, but if one the caliber of Parise, who already fits this team to the letter and is the game-breaking star LW that this current roster is missing, comes available, to not even explore that as an option is silly. As for the bolded, yes they can afford a Parise (even at $7.5/year, see previous post) and the only difference it makes in 2 years is Dubinsky (being the current best LW) is upgraded to Parise, while opening up the 2nd LW spot for Kreider (who is likely by year 2 a cheaper Dubinsky anyway). If you can trade Dubinksy for Parise straight-up while keeping the rest of the current and long-term plans in tact, you do it.

Dfence033 is offline   Reply With Quote