: Confirmed with Link:
Irving signs one year deal
View Single Post
07-28-2012, 01:18 AM
unholy acting talent
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Error 503
What a peculiar process.
Feaster fights super hard to get Irving to sign a two way deal even though he isn't waiver eligible next season. To top it off, it's a one year deal, meaning he'll most likely be a UFA because we all know he isn't playing 22 games next year as MVW brought up, unless of course Kipper suffers a significant injury or is traded at some point.
So either Feaster thinks Irving can pass through waivers safely if need be, or he's just sticking it to him on the principle that he hasn't 'earned' a one way deal yet. Both are mistakes; if it's the former, well, there's enough teams that could use goaltending help and given Irvings cheap contract and pedigree, he'll most likely be claimed. If it's the later, then Irving will remember this when it comes to signing his next contract whether it's as a RFA or UFA. He'll either walk as a free agent to a team that gives him a better opportunity or plays hardball. Or maybe Feaster just doesn't think Irving has what it takes to be a starter.
Seems like a really short sighted move in all.
Originally Posted by
I get the feeling management is a little higher on Karlsson than the fans, otherwise they wouldn't have given 2-year deal last summer that created this inevitable/forseeable situation..
Feaster's shown a penchant for throwing 2 year deals at every two bit player or role player, but not prospects. Karlsson, Babchuk, Carson, Butler, Wilson, Piskula, Kolanos, Jackman, Stempniak, Jones, Sarich, and Comeau (thankfully refused). I don't think it means much at all.
The common rationale is that a signed player is an asset that can later be traded for another asset(s) if shown to be redundant or unnecessary. Usually doesn't work though as the player who lost his job ends up with a perception that he's worthless value wise, which is the case here.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Calculon