View Single Post
Old
11-18-2003, 12:45 PM
  #56
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,352
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
You are forgetting a few things:

1) The Caps will be eating a good portion of Jagr's contract. So quick using "the contract" as a way to devalue Jagr's worth. The reason the Caps will eat salary is so they can GET value for Jagr. If the decide to trade Jagr without eating any salary then yes, I agree with you: his value is so much lower. But the Caps have said they are willing to eat a good sized portion.

2) The Rangers, even though they have extremely deep pockets, will have to move players (salaries) to take on players (salaries). It will not be a one for one deal IMO.
The Rangers could take on his contract no problem. In fact, I think the Rangers (provided they are interested in him) would rather take the entire contract, move some dead weight, and keep talent rather than have Washington eat part of the contract. The Rangers would rather take the entire salary and keep his value where it is right now. The Caps might be willing to eat some of it. The Rangers may not want them to.

If in a previously proposed trade the Rangers trade Kasparatis for Jagr, the deal is basically Jagr for Kaspar + 37M. The Rangers move a contract and get Jagr at a discounted rate (at least according to the bottom line as they take one salary but also ship some out).

The Caps cannot hope to get a good return for Jagr. The biggest asset they are getting is relief from his contract. If they could add a serviceable defenseman as well, I can't see how they would turn it down. But to think that the Rangers would or even would have to include Poti, Lundmark or draft picks is quite far fetched IMO.

__________________
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline