View Single Post
02-06-2014, 10:56 AM
Registered User
Ola's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 21,650
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
You would sign every player to a long-term contract and justify it if the cap going up.

You thought the Vinny Lecavalier contract was a good contract and the Rangers trade for him. Yzerman amnestied him and its the best move he ever made. The Flyers are now stuck with Vinny.
And I think that Lecavalier has been a decent pickup for Philly too. A little over 4m per. He has been good when I've seen them at least. They have other problems.

I think Brass and Stralsy should be locked up for sure. Natrually conditional upon them taking decent deals, but given their numbers I think they would. The longer term the better.

I don't see how we plan to replace Girardi if he is let go. I think the numbers mentioned makes sense and hence I think he should be locked up.

I think Cally is a tough decision. But I would worry more about AAV than term. For me it comes down to the return we can get for him. If it's a crap asset and a late first, I rather keep him.

I've not changed my opinion on that since we played bad.

Also, I know the cap is going up. There is no if in that equation. Even if there is zero growth one year, the PA has a 5% inflator they can invoke. If the cap is 80m, that is 4m more cap space despite zero growth.

Lastly, most other GMs seem to agree with me. All over the place teams has locked up their assets. They have not nickle and dimed and many have skipped the bridge contract BS. In light of what Slats doing, my opinion is a bit radical. Not on light of what many others are doing.

I think many just have a bit of a problem understanding the business side of the game. Signing someone is an investment. A young player might cost more y1-y2, but after that (I) he is cheaper and (II) you don't risk loosin him for nothing. With the cap having gone up a lot, many teams are saving a tremendous amount on players they signed to 4-6 year deals.

Slats just dropped the ball here. He spent a bunch of money on Torts players and always only gave the guys that could play shortest possible term. Like Zucc for example. Didn't you think it was ridiculous to give Zucc the contract he got? Wouldn't have been bad to give him a bit of a longer deal in hindsight ehh? How about Stepan, you think it was a good idea to nickle and dime? These deals will cost us a lot. We could have saved money on others -- easily -- and tied them up long term. Let's see who is right in a couple of years.

Ola is offline