View Single Post
Old
12-17-2012, 03:51 PM
  #56
blankall
Registered User
 
blankall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hi-wayman View Post
What are you rambling on about? Did you actually bother to read my post?

My post's opinion is that teams that have a minimal number of players who's contracts expire prior to next year's season, especially core players, will be a more stable team during the 2013-14 season while teams with a lot of UFA's and RFA's could lose some of those UFA's & RFA's due to a feeding frenzy or have to over pay to keep those UFA's. Radical roster changes usually take a year or two for the players to settle down and gel as a team.
Stability aside, the Canucks are losing a year on their "window". The organization is losing a year of revenue. The Sedins could be 33 by the time next year starts. They could lose Edler for nothing, and no Ballard is not a replacement for their #1 defenceman.

I can't see how this year is anything but a negative.

Same can be said for any team in "win now" mode: Detroit, Boston, Chicago, etc..

blankall is online now   Reply With Quote