View Single Post
05-28-2013, 02:45 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 8,370
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
Sure it was. When he got his last deal, most would have ranked him below Luongo, actually. Yet he was paid more. We can quibble about how much he was overpaid, but he was still overpaid by a bit at the time. We merely justified it because the cap went up.

I think Nash is fine at 7. It's about market value for him. If he hit UFA tomorrow, he'd get 8.

Not really. Just because Nash was overpaid does not mean Hank has to be overpaid. Nash's contract should have very little bearing on Hank since we did not sign Nash to that deal.
On the first bold point, I don't doubt what you're saying, but just because a team would be willing to pay Nash $8 million per year does not make it a good contract. Remember, multiple teams were willing to sign Redden at $6+ million per year, that didn't mean Sather made the right choice at that cap hit.

And on the second point, I do agree that we didn't sign Nash at that contract, but I have a hard time believing that Lundqvist, who knows he is the best player on the team, will be willing to take less than someone who hasn't paid his dues as a NYR making more than him.

Look at Pittsburgh. Crosby was signed at $8.7 million. Malkin had the same value to the team at the time. If Malkin signed elsewhere, a team would have offered him more. BUT, the Penguins management and Malkin knew he had similar value to Crosby and got the same contract (especially when the contracts were signed). If you think you're the best player on the team, or tied for the best (in Malkin and Crosby's case during their first signing) than you want to be paid like that.

Fataldogg is offline   Reply With Quote