: News Article:
Glen Sather looking at free agency - "We don't trade kids"
View Single Post
05-31-2012, 10:53 AM
Oh Hai Guise
Join Date: Jul 2004
Originally Posted by
The only way you get players to sign for one year is for a premium. He'd get a long term deal for about 5 million most likely.
The Rangers have the money to overpay someone. The only implications are cap implications, and if you sign someone for a year there are none. Its not the optimal scenario but realistically what is the downside.
If we get to August 1st, Semin is still a Free Agent, the asking price for Nash is way too high and all the good UFAs are gone and we need to add some scoring, what is the downside to adding Semin for one year if he agrees to it.
If you tell me what the downside is, I'll completely retract this idea.
Frankly, I don't see one. Let's say its obvious from day one
he is a cancer in the lockerroom (which really isn't proven - he is just notoriously soft), he could easily be sent to the whale where he certainly wouldn't report and just go to Russia.
I would not sign him for more than one year
but if it takes an extra million or two and doesn't get in the way of our RFAs...I have no problem with it. The funds are coming from the bottomless pit known as Cablevision.
And you know what - some of these Russians get a bad wrap...look at Kovalchuk's turn around. Maybe there is an off chance that he actually
adds to our team (as small as it is).[/
Isn't there two downsides here 7M to play for the whale?
Bringing in a locker room cancer?
Can you retract your idea now?
On the last your not convinced about it either. (As small as it is)
I'm saying IF he is a locker room cancer and that's a big IF.
I mean if he is really that awful, you just healthy scratch him and keep him away from the team.
I doubt that will happen though. He is good enough that he is trade-able. Its a one year contract.
I completely understand not investing money in him for more than an year and making sure he is not the first choice:
but frankly if:
A) all options are exhausted
B) its a one year deal
there is very little risk...
He is good enough that he is trade-able.
The one year deal makes him a liquid asset, even if it is a bit expensive.
You just don't give him any sort of NM or NTC...
What I meant by "as small as it is" is that he buys into the system. Realistically, if we signed him, I'd see him coming in for one year, adding a bit to the powerplay, and making us a bit more dangerous 5 on 5. He'd probably be gone the next year...Maybe there is a small chance that he becomes a revelation, and you sign him long term next year.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by ChrisKreider20