Quote:
Originally Posted by Zetterberg4Captain
1, markov was 33, had repeated knee injuries/surgeries/lengthy recoveries(hasent played this season), signed by an inept GM to play in the city with the most pressure by a team that has to overpay to attract ufa's in a province with the highest taxes in NA.
|
I don't disagree with
everything you just said, but we're not talking about trying to find precise duplicates of players. We're looking for reasonably similar guys. Markov and Suter both play a lot of minutes as a top pairing dman. Markov's injury struggles the past two years are obviously a concern, yes... but I have a hard time believing you don't think Markov would make 5ish+ were he healthy.
Quote:
|
2. keith was 26. my point regarding those 3 dman was also to do with the fact they signed with the teams that drafted them, which more then likely resulted in "hometown discounts" something no UFA who changes teams will feel obligated to do.
|
Well, that's an issue as to whether either Suter or Weber will even become UFAs, not to what UFAs of their calibre actually sign for.
Quote:
|
3. campbell was 27 when he signed as a ufa, changed teams exatly like suter would have to do to sign anywhere but nashville, signed for 7 years at 7.2 million a season.
|
That's obviously a case where a UFA dman signed for a lot of money to move... but I'm not sure if it's a case of such a move being something that team would want to repeat.
I suppose I could respond with, say, Rafalski. He signed for 5 years at 6 per as a UFA and was at the time in the top 15 of NHL dmen like Suter likely is today.
All of that aside, I haven't seen anything to suggest that the market for UFA dmen has progressed much beyond where it has been the past two years. Weber got a 2 year arb award for 7.5, he's better than Suter, and it was only a two year deal. Most of the middle tier (as in, #2 #3 type) defensemen are signing for the same 4-5ish mil they've usually signed for. Wiz, Bieska, Pitkanen, Ehrhoff... etc.
Again, if Suter is going to sign for 6 or fewer years, I can totally see his cap hit being ~7 mil. If he signs a longer deal, however, since it would effectively be a lifetime contract for him I think he'll allow it to be frontloaded to provide his new team as much leeway as possible with regards to building a winning club. It would be, after all, chief among his reasons for wanting to even leave Nashville in the first place.
Quote:
|
as for some other players how about datsyuk, franzen and zetterberg who were all 28, 29, and 28 when they signed their career contracts
|
And two of those three contracts were lifer deals with reduced cap hits. The other was sub 7.
Quote:
|
4. so are you saying 34 year olds only sign 2 or 3 year deals?
|
No. And I know that because I said "where he would be unlikely to get anything more than a 2 or 3 year deal".
As in, 'unlikely' as opposed to impossible or something that never happens anywhere, ever.
Quote:
|
5. i am not 100% against 10 year type deals, i am just not in favour of having too many on one team, and yes i think having 3 on one team is too many, as i feel it could cripple you in the years to come.
|
I didn't say you were against the deals out of hand individually. I said you were against having three of them out of hand to the point where you'd want maybe the best GM in the NHL fired outright if it happens. And you are.
As I said, I'm not as long as they are carefully constructed.
For instance, let's say instead of Z's current deal he just signed a 7 year one for 7-8 mil a year. Is that deal inherently less risky than his current one? Not really... it just loads all of the back-end risk people like me are concerned about now into the 1-2 mil a year extra the Wings would have to carry on their cap every season.
Different types of risk, not necessarily more or less.
