Bates signs 3 year deal
View Single Post
03-06-2006, 11:20 AM
Join Date: Sep 2002
Originally Posted by
I agree, that is a gamble for precisely the reasons you state. But as much as you and I like Bates (he's Masterful!
) the new GM is the one who should be making that decision, not me, you or Milbury. Yes, we could lose him via free agency if we didn't sign him now, but it's just not Milbury's place to decide who is so valuable we should lock them up. What happens when Milbury decides Kvasha is a good PKer and Oleg decides he'll sign a three-year deal for $800,000 and Milbury locks him up? We said it as a joke before, but should Milbury make that decision? Yes, perhaps there was some marginally greater risk of losing Bates if we waited until April, but given our situation those are the breaks -- Milbury simply should not be tying our new GM's hands with any new commitments.
Well, the big difference in Bates and Oleg is that one I think with a longterm contract for a reasonable rate still has trade value and at worst would be picked up on waivers. The other, well... With a longterm contract, I think we'd probably end up stuck with. So there's risk with Oleg. But I think we're unlikely to get a new GM until the offseason, that wouldn't offer the guy much time to work something out with Bates, especially with all the other things that will already be on his plate. So IMO, the greater risk is in not signing him.
Again, all this assumes reasonable dollar figures in the contract.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Seph