View Single Post
Old
02-23-2012, 10:34 PM
  #16
Gilligans Island
Registered User
 
Gilligans Island's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: SF/Bay Area
Posts: 7,982
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron Chef View Post
The biggest thing that worries me is that taking on Nash really does put us on a win now mode that tightens "the window"

Couture signed with a great discount because DW likely told him that he would take care of him when he had some flexibility with Marleau, Thornton, and Boyle being UFAs. Then Vlasic will be due at the very least Brent Burns type money...And just because Marleau, Thornton, and Boyle are UFAs, doesnt mean were getting rid of them, we'll likely keep them all if we can sign them at cheaper contracts. I just don't like the idea of becoming top heavy again when we will have to dump our depth players
I really like Vlasic and he is an awesome defensive dman but he is no where close to earning Burns money. Those dmen have 2-way games. Vlasic is superior on the defensive side only. It'll take between $4.5, maybe $5m to re-sign him at the top end.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheFence View Post
I don't see how it tightens the window. The window is already set around the careers of Thornton, Marleau, Boyle, and to a lesser extent, Havlat. If anything, this trade would create a new window centered around Couture, Nash, Burns, Vlasic, and Pavelski (assuming, he's not traded for Nash) once Thornton, Marleau, Boyle, and Havlat reach the end of their careers.
With Nash, it does stretch out the window past 2014 and DW may be looking at that angle. If we trade for Nash and can get enough forward depth in the next 2 seasons, then we'll be fine.

Gilligans Island is offline   Reply With Quote