Don't think it's going to happen. Anything more, Rangers should walk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Girl
Agreed. That offer isn't going to get it done, though, so Sather will have no choice but to go to six years. It's what we do.
Good luck getting a 31 year old player, interested in signing his last ever contract to sign a 4 year deal. Although the salary is about right, the years are off.
Good luck getting a 31 year old player, interested in signing his last ever contract to sign a 4 year deal. Although the salary is about right, the years are off.
Yeah, I agree. We're going to have no choice but to pay Richards into retirement. Or we can always walk away from him.
Don't know that there are any specific rumors really.
The speculation is that Dallas would be his first choice, but he's leery of their uncertain ownership situation. Also speculated that Toronto would be interested, but he might not want to go there, and that he would be amenable to signing a contract to come play here.
Anyone remember how many Kovalchuk threads there were around the '10 deadline?
Remember when Mats Sundin was making his return? Everyone knew he didn't fit into the cap, but there were multiple threads with breathless speculation nonetheless.
Anyway, to get this back on topic, here's a quote from Brendan Morrow (who is apparently close to Richards) indicating that even if Dallas gets new ownership, they're going to have to open up the coffers, not just for Richards but for the entire team, if they want to keep him.
Quote:
He’s in a position where I think he wants to have an owner he feels is willing to spend to have a competitive team and if he doesn’t see that situation here, he’s probably going to move on.
Dallas spent $51,855,892 on payroll last year, $7,544,108 under the cap. They incurred heavy losses while spending at that level, so Morrow believes that any new owner needs to not only demonstrate a likelihood of stability for the rest of Richards' career, but a willingness to increase the team payroll (and likely losses) by as much as $10m next year, if the cap goes up beyond $62m.
Good luck getting a 31 year old player, interested in signing his last ever contract to sign a 4 year deal. Although the salary is about right, the years are off.
I'm coming around on Richards. Just no NMC, please. Our ability to pay guys tons of money to play in Hartford is our biggest competitive advantage. We negate that with the NMC.
Or we could go with a partial NMC - he has it in the first 3 years or so of his deal, and it becomes a LNTC the last couple of years, if we absolutely HAD to give him one.
Or we could go with a partial NMC - he has it in the first 3 years or so of his deal, and it becomes a LNTC the last couple of years, if we absolutely HAD to give him one.
I'm coming around on Richards. Just no NMC, please. Our ability to pay guys tons of money to play in Hartford is our biggest competitive advantage. We negate that with the NMC.
I think signing him isn't a bad idea at all. The commitment is, in my opinion. I'm still 50/50 on him. Best Free Agent that we could of have signed in a long time. First time we have a true #1 center since Nylander and a PP QB. Really good. No question.
A 31 year old with - just say he signed for 6 years/$6.8 a year - a big contract, would we be happy with him in the fourth, fifth or sixth year? He could possibly be an experienced veteran for the team now and then that gets us over the top. Too risky with the length and the cap hit at that point. I just hope I'm wrong when if it comes to it.
Last edited by Florida Ranger: 05-10-2011 at 04:02 PM.
But how long is he going to want to sign for and how old will he be towards the end of the deal? And will he still be productive?
The Rangers hand out a lot of money for "today" without much concern for what the future may hold in terms of aging and a decline in productivity, however steep that may be. 5-6 years is a long time and a big investment. For how many of those years will he be a first line center? It's a big risk for a team that is multiple pieces away from being a serious contender.
I'm not worried about 31 year old Brad Richards. The Rangers could have used him against Washington. It's what he'll be when the Rangers are still devoting a hefty cap hit to him in the later years of his contract that could be a problem.
But how long is he going to want to sign for and how old will he be towards the end of the deal? And will he still be productive?
The Rangers hand out a lot of money for "today" without much concern for what the future may hold in terms of aging and a decline in productivity, however steep that may be. 5-6 years is a long time and a big investment. For how many of those years will he be a first line center? It's a big risk for a team that is multiple pieces away from being a serious contender.
I'm not worried about 31 year old Brad Richards. The Rangers could have used him against Washington. It's what he'll be when the Rangers are still devoting a hefty cap hit to him in the later years of his contract that could be a problem.
I'm not worried about the 31 year old Richards.
I'm worried about the 35, 36, 37 year old Richards.
