View Single Post
Old
01-24-2013, 01:11 AM
  #579
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Da Big Apple
Country: United States
Posts: 11,965
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kratzbuerste View Post
...
Quote:
That would be so bad for Dallas to be in a position where they`d have to trade their best young player
Agreed.
Note with appreciation you say Dallas would be in that position, not that it was my idea to say, hey, how can do a McDonagh on them.

They wanted Benn long term, he doesn't wanna go there now.
That happens to work well for us, because that's when other contracts will explode.

Benn restricting his next deal to max $ for 3 yrs only impacts offers.
But there will still be other good offers.
I said win-win, as in something wince wince we'll notice, but be worth it.
Dallas has to decide what is the best deal --- or offer Benn 3 years (but that's on them, not us).


Quote:
...to get back a player on a ridiculously horrible contract who left no doubt about how he wanted to leave and **** them over in the process.
I understand there are options in the later years, so it's really more like 4 + yrs.

It was high, not horrible before, that's was the going rate.
And I'm not gonna be hypocritical about it.
That's what Richards wanted, that's what he commanded, that's what he got.

Now with the new CBA, this deal is not in a vacuum, so we move him, or lose several other guys, which doesn't make sense.

We could create space dealing him elsewhere.
But this would help if Richards and Dallas were comfortable enough with it.

It's a good + high end passing center for a do it all great C, i.e, 1 for 1.
Rangers add in enough, may be something they can live with, compared to lowball offers.

It was my understanding, and I could well be wrong so pls advise if I am not fully informed, but it was my understanding he was good in Dallas, even gave them a chance during his last season there to work out something, which didn't happen. So Torts might be his favorite, but he would not be adverse to to the Stars, if he was getting paid.

To allow for saving face, we'd have to eat part of the current deal, and if $ is allowed to be included under the new CBA, we may have to do some of that.

Richards at some point does have to give Rangers options to move him, if he is the one contract they can't merely not afford vs. cap, but need to move so there is enough cap for multiple younger guys. I don't remember the exact provisions, but at some point soon, those will kick in. Richards did that, IMO, both to be magnanimous and because that was some of the leverage Sather had in negotiation, a price Richards paid to get top dollar.
As long as he gets top dollar, he can't complain.

Quote:
Not saying it has a 0% chance of happening, but I`d certainly feel bad for Stars fans if it did.
So what win win is possible to improve those odds?

bernmeister is offline