Thread: Rumor: Trade Rumor Thread XIII
View Single Post
01-24-2014, 09:56 AM
Registered User
Ola's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 18,692
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by bmw2004 View Post
How come teams like Boston and Chicago have no problems with resigning their good players and don't go over the cap. I am not familiar with their salaries. Aren't they suppose to make more or about what Rangers players make?
The biggest diffrence is that Slats don't belive in signing long contracts. They didn't do that in EDM during the 80's. Most GM's would have tied up Girardi and Callahan long-term at around 4m per at this point. They would have been huge assets.

Chi are paying what, 70+m to their players this year. The cap is 63m. Shave 7m of cap-space of that team and they might not even be a contender. Hossa and another core player goes. When Hossa is done in the NHL he will go to a doctor and ask what is wrong with him. Since there never has been a hockey player closing in on 40 who doesn't have at least one chronical injury, say a knee, back or shoulder, or whatever, he will just go on LTIR his last years of his contract. Chicago will be off the hook.

Slats can trade for players on long contracts or sign UFAs to really long deals. When it comes to resigning our own guys, its always shortest term possible. Two year deals.

Its really hard to understand the positives of Slats approch. Yet, everyone around here also seem to hate any deal that is longer than 3 years. We are doing the same misstakes over and over again.

Ola is offline