Still waiting for official word - everything seems to be stemming from a FanHouse (whoever that is?) report that was then tweeted by Chris Botta who was then retweeted by everyone else. However, given that Brooks, Gross and others seem to be treating it is probably a good sign that it's legit.
As to the terms themselves, c'mon guys OBVIOUSLY it's a good deal. Everyone's looking at the cap hit and ignoring the length. Personally, I had always been predicting a contract with an AAV of $2.75MM - but I was assuming that it would be a 2 year deal. Girardi for $3.325 for 4 years (including 3 UFA years) is a good deal, period.
Girardi has yet to play at least 3/4 of a season of good hockey. In each of the last three years, he either had a great first half and crappy 2nd half, or the other way around.
No way this contract is more than two or three years. It solidifes the group, and I guess I can deal with another year or two of Girardi, but he isnt deserving of a whole lot of money.
Fool.
Note on Staal, while he is obviously better than Girardi, with much more upside, you must consider leverage when discussing contract, not simply their "worth". As most here know, relative to their value if everyone was a UFA, the younger/less experienced you are, the more underpaid you are, and visa versa. Staal is no doubt better than Girardi, and will likely get more than him, especially if UFA years are bought out. But he does not have the leverage that Girardi does. That is the structure of the CBA agreed to by the players. Sather makes mention of this in a comment about his discussions with Orr. Players can't have it both ways.
If it's a one year deal the cap doesn't mean anything. He said he was hoping they could find a way to get him so when he says hoping to get him I feel he's already indicating knowledge of the cap hit this year and he hopes the Rangers find a way to work around it and get him under for this one year. It's not like we are signing anymore guys and maybe he has a resurgent year and can be sold off come trade time to return another 2nd or something. Of course that's assuming we'd ever be sellers in any way shape or form...if we're committed to youth it makes sense to take a flyer (no pun intender) on the guy and see if we can do that.
Compare Girardi to Michalek -- stats, hits, ice time and contract and you will feel a lot better. And as someone who saw both play at least 60 games last year, I can tell you that Dan passes the eye test too. Very fair contract for an underrated player.
Can't see how anyone could have any complaint. Too much money is flat out wrong. It's not too long or short. Guess it depends on how badly you underrate Girardi. He is definitely exactly worth this amount. Maybe even slightly more since I assume he will get at least slightly better over time. He could always also regress but I dont think he will. Great signing for what has been a spectacular FA period.
doesnt the GM signing his own guys who have performed well at a <= market rate make sense?
didnt think i really needed to spell this one out but nonetheless...
his contract, although obviouslly less than what he would recieve as an UFA (due to the nature of unrestricted free agency), is worth more than i think a player of his caliber should have recieved in a restricted free agnecy situation
didnt think i really needed to spell this one out but nonetheless...
his contract, although obviouslly less than what he would recieve as an UFA (due to the nature of unrestricted free agency), is worth more than i think a player of his caliber should have recieved in a restricted free agnecy situation
This isn't a RFA situation. As soon as this contract hits the 2nd year it's a UFA situation. Then a 3rd year makes it 2 UFA then the 4th year makes it 3 UFA. So if they signed him for a 3 year contract NEXT off-season isn't this about right maybe slightly less? Assuming what he might have gotten NEXT year as a UFA we didn't outbid ourselves.
This isn't a RFA situation. As soon as this contract hits the 2nd year it's a UFA situation. Then a 3rd year makes it 2 UFA then the 4th year makes it 3 UFA. So if they signed him for a 3 year contract NEXT off-season isn't this about right maybe slightly less? Assuming what he might have gotten NEXT year as a UFA we didn't outbid ourselves.
I like this deal, pretty much. I guess it means that Danny is considered part of the "core".
We'd certainly have to overpay on the FA market for someone to replace him, so I think that 3.325 is a fair cap hit considering he's giving up 3 FA years.
