Acq/ Rost. Bldg./ Cap Part XVI
View Single Post
01-21-2013, 08:16 PM
Terror Goes Into
Join Date: Feb 2004
Originally Posted by
i think you have to consider that the conditions change.
1. a player on a one last shot one year contract that has a successful season then has the choice to move on for a better contract. if you take a chance on a player and he finds success, would you want to lose him to a rival because you wanted to keep the presssure up on him?
2. lets use bradley as an example. bradley was increasingly effective as a motivating factor the longer he was with the team and the more apart of its fabric he became. same is true of hendricks. if you change that player out evert year on a one year contract, you dont get that value and often will end up with a bust of a player.
Except grinders are the easiest players in the NHL to replace, maybe except of backup goalies. The only time they are worth locking up is if they are elite penalty killers or defensive players, but then we are talking about the Caps roster here. If they find greener pasture elsewhere, there are plenty of options for the league minimum and you could also put young players on their ELC in a low risk role.
If the entire team falls apart because grinders don't stick around, there is a deeper problem with a lack of leadership at the top end of the roster that no grinders will fix.
View Public Profile
Brad Tolliver's albums
Find More Posts by Brad Tolliver