View Single Post
05-14-2013, 01:08 PM
Da Gawd
Flavius's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: H.A.M. City
Country: United States
Posts: 497
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
It worked out better than Drury, Gomez and Redden if that's what you mean.

Go back to when Sather handed out the contract:

1) He had already failed on big-ticket items.

2) He gave a multi-million dollar, multi-year deal to a guy who played a total of 17 games the previous season and hadn't played over 80 games in the previous three.

Now, Gaborik did perform well for at times (a good seasons, a mediocre seaseon, a good season and bad season), but it's still a big ticket item that ultimately fell apart here and had to be dealt.

But let's assume that the Gaborik was an unqualified good move. What's the difference between the Gaborik deal and the Redden and Drury deals? Well, Gaboirik was 27 at the time. Meaning in theory Sather was paying for what he could do, not for what he's done. Lesson learned, right? Explain the Brad Richards deal then?
While I do see your point, I also see the benefits of the Gabby deal pre-signing. Gomez got a 7 year deal when he was what, 28? 29? Drury got a similar deal to Gabby but he was a few years older. We got a guy who, while injury prone throughout his career, was only 27 and signed him for 5 years. Just because previous big ticket items had failed in the past doesn't mean all big ticket items will fail in the future.

And as it stands right now the Gabby deal wasn't so terrible. If we kept him for the remainder of this year and next it could have been a different story, but in the end it worked out well for us. Does that mean that we shouldn't sign guys more than 3 years in case they end up not working out beyond that? Maybe. But I guess the opportunity cost outweighs that thinking when it comes to some of these deals.

Flavius is offline