overpaying for players bad idea?
View Single Post
05-22-2012, 11:52 AM
Join Date: Jan 2012
Originally Posted by
I tend to not like the long contracts as well. It is hard to compare some of these teams. Chicago won after having several years of high draft picks that hadn't reached their second contract yet. that is why they struggle now. They could not afford to keep all of their players.
Pittsburgh had 5 consecutive drafts with top 5 picks, and with two of those being Malkin and Crosby who could almost win cups without any help.
I think New Jersey and Detroit fall into a different category, because they actually try to develop talent and skill and tend to not make dumb signings or trades in general. for whatever reason, most teams don't follow their ideas of how to produce good hockey teams.
Since no team opts to act like Detroit or NJ (who both must have ties to the occult in order to achieve their success) I like the path of the Canes.
I got to see a lot of the Canes games that year, and they won by committee. Think about their playoffs - it was like a different player stepped up each round. Their defense was made up of six #3/4 d-men instead of having any real #1 or #6, which is how I would like the Flyers to go.
Instead of tying lots of money into Suter I would rather they get good serviceable d-man for a short term. This would allow the Flyers to keep their forwards when their contracts end, as well as resign Voracek.
that's what im saying, the flyers have to get rid of big contracts to sign any players in fa because they are close to the cap, so some moves have to be made.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by toughfighter83*