View Single Post
Old
07-18-2006, 11:48 AM
  #48
SmokeyClause
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Miami, FL
Country: Cuba
Posts: 9,999
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to SmokeyClause
Quote:
Originally Posted by PattyLafontaine View Post
but ... horrible contract length. The length become a problem because Nashville signed him for years 4 and 5. God forbid Arnott's play greatly dimishes Nashville has to deal with a situation similar to one Lou L is dealing with Mogilny and Malakov, eseentailly 4.5 million of wasted cap space. Of course if Arnott is playing great hockey it's not a concern but with 35 and over rule it is certainly a risk. Ahould have decreased the length and upped the price.
It's really only a big deal to those who don't know Nashville's situations. The 35 and over rule and various other salary cap related concerns don't really apply to the Preds. Provided the cap doesn't decrease, I don't see the Preds spending up to it. This year they'll probably hover at or around $7 million below. So any rules that would penalize signings such as this long-term are irrelevant to the Preds.

The only scenario where this hurts is if Arnott becomes dead weight later on in the contract and the $4.5 million that we pay him in those final years is money we can't spend to improve the team under our self-imposed cap. But I'm sure Poile and Leipold, the owner, talked about this situation at length. I wouldn't be surprised if Poile got word from Leipold that he'd be willing to spend more in the future in order to alleviate the risk of signing a player to a contract such as this.

The bottom line is that while the Predators future is as bright as any team's, they have a nice window here in the next couple of years to really make something happen (next year specifically). And they need to move quick to make sure they maximize this chance.


Last edited by SmokeyClause: 07-18-2006 at 11:55 AM.
SmokeyClause is offline   Reply With Quote