View Single Post
Old
12-31-2012, 05:41 PM
  #412
boredmale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 24,099
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veteran journeyman View Post
I don't see any of this as Monday-morning quarterbacking or hindsight 20/20. There were plenty of folks who said this contract was too risky when it was signed. There were many, many reasons why a 15-year contract to a goaltender could have went bad, and maybe those people did not specifically pinpoint the exact circumstances that unfolded, but it all falls under the "too risky" umbrella. Those defending the contract shrugged off the risks by saying "we'll see." Well, we saw. The doubters are well within their rights to offer up a little "told you so" on this one.
"Told you so" would be if Dipietro ended up a average goalie without the injuries. If somebody had a problem with 15 years(which is a fair argument) in fear the player might be injured and become a shell of what he was, then they should be saying this to every 10+ year deal

boredmale is offline