Thread: Speculation: Time to re-up Nasty Nate?
View Single Post
01-30-2013, 01:58 PM
Took the red pill
Artemis's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mount Olympus
Country: United States
Posts: 20,856
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by smithformeragent View Post
Coming into this year, Rask was a backup goalie who played limited time last year because of injury. He had much to prove coming into this year, so no I don't think he had the Bruins over the barrel like he may next off season.

I also don't buy into the "he's the type of guy who will stay for less" stuff. At the end of the day, it's a business and the players just got taken to the mat during the lock out. I can't imagine any of them doing ownership any favors in the foreseeable future.

My two cents.
There is a precedent that has been set on this team - Bergeron, Lucic, Chara and Krejci all probably would have attracted better offers if they had chosen to go to free agency, yet all re-signed reasonable deals well before even getting close to it.

Of course Rask should be well compensated; he's not going to take a lousy deal. But I don't think he's going to demand a contract that would force the Bruins into cap hell.He wants to win just as much as his teammates do.

Artemis is offline