Rask Signed

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from biggskye. Show biggskye's posts

    Re: Rask Signed

       Not a fan of any contract over 6 years, so I don't like this signing.

    This is MAX money for Max years. It seems to me, that any of us could have signed Rask to this deal. It does not seem very creative, on the part of Chiarelli.

    I find that gm's do not use the financial security players receive from these long term contracts, to their advantage. It is the teams that shoulder all the risk in these deals. The player gets all his money, no matter how he performs, so if they want the security of an 8 year contract, it should come at some cost.

    It's summer, so using baseball terminology, this deal IMO, was strike two for Chiarelli in the past couple of weeks.I expect strike three to be signing Bergeron to an almost identical contract to Rask's.

    I'm as big a Bergeron fan as everybody else on this site, but his concussion history cannot be ignored. Players, gm's, and owners are always saying the NHL is a business first, so Chiarelli cannot let his emotions dictate his dealings with Bergeron.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Rask Signed

    In response to jpBsSoxFan's comment:


    Funny you didn't mention that there are all kinds of capable and reliable back up goalies out there, cause the Bruins are going to need one. I don't mind the deal but given that Rask has been prone to injury, they need someone as insurance who can play 20-25 games a season. Please don't say Johnson is that guy, they are gonna have to do a hell of a lot better than that.

     

    It's not funny (odd or haha) that I didn't mention backup goalies.  Backups aren't the topic, are they?  Is the backup goalie much of a problem right now?  #AwesomeTeamProblems  I don't know anything about Johnson.  I didn't know anything about Khudobin.  I didn't study up on Auld.  I didn't start paying attention to Rask until Thomas went down.  I don't care about the backup goalie.  They come and go.


    Ready for Rask's injury list?  Better get a drink and some pretzels.  This tome is lengthy:

    2012/04/22 Missed 19 regular season and 5 playoff games (groin). 2012/03/04 Groin, sidelined indefinitely. 2010/03/09 Missed 3 games (undisclosed). 2010/03/04 Undisclosed, day-to-day.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Rask Signed

    In response to biggskye's comment:

    I'm as big a Bergeron fan as everybody else on this site, but his concussion history cannot be ignored. Players, gm's, and owners are always saying the NHL is a business first, so Chiarelli cannot let his emotions dictate his dealings with Bergeron.



    Relax.  If the B's consult their medical team and determine that giving Bergeron a long term deal is okay, then who are we to say, "Yeah, but..." when it comes to it.

    Bunch of Chicken Littles running around here. 

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: Rask Signed

    I was extremely impressed with Tuukka Rask in the playoffs.  I thought he was near flawless. His rebound control was ridiculous. I thought Tim Thomas was good, but always felt that certain goalies, like Lundqvist, were a little better.  This year  Rask was superior to Lundqvist, and then in the Eastern final, in a series featuring some of the supposedly best and most valuable players in the game, to me he was the single biggest difference-maker.  I also thought he was excellent in the final, a final that the Bruins easily could have won.  It's hard to argue when the games most valuable players make 9-10 million a year that Rask isn't worth 7.  I can't think of a single goalie I would rather have, and he's young and just entering his prime.  For me only Quick is in the same ball park at this moment in time.

    The only arguments I see against this contract are that the Bruins system makes goalies look good, and I think that's partly the truth.  Between Julien's coaching, Bergeron's two-way game, dominance on faceoffs and having a 7 foot monster on defence, goalies have a dream scenario in Boston.  A lesser goalie could still do very well for the Bruins. You could also say that with Quick at 5.8, 7 is too much.

    But for me I've been through too many years as a Bruins fan where I felt opposing teams had the edge in goal, and I didn't like it.  I think knowing you're the best in nets has a very positive mental impact on players, and a very intimidating affect on the opposition.  I think even Sidney Crosby made some very disheartened comment about not being able to beat Rask this year.

    The contract isn't much of a bargain, but if there is a spot to splurge, it's on a goalie.  If you are going to spend a lot, it should be on one of the best in world.  And if you are going to do a long term deal, it should be on a 26 year old healthy player entering their prime and who really wants to play on your team.  And if second-line right wings are worth 6 million as UFA's, surely elite goalies are worth 7.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Rask Signed


    It's too much money, and too long a term.  I agree with that, and i'd bet PC does too.  They all are.

    Obviously though, it had to be done to keep him.  The B's took a gamble last year on this one, and it didn't pay, now it's time to ante up.

    I think we're better off with him, than without.  The cap is going up substantially next year which is good.  Assuming it's going to keep going that way, could be a mistake though.  The graph doesn't go straight up forever.

    Risk/reward with all long term deals, and that's inescapable unless you cut these guys loose.  I think that's a poor option

    Overall, I don't see much to complain about.  If he continues to do what he's been doing everything is fine.  If he forgets how to play the position, it doesn't matter what they're paying him.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Archer1. Show Archer1's posts

    Re: Rask Signed

    Can someone please provide a link and/or financial numbers on this theory that the cap is going up next season? I haven't seen it anywhere...

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Rask Signed

    In response to dezaruchi's comment:

    A "smidiot" perhaps? To me,Shupe and Book are both awesome. I also didn't really think Book was calling him an idiot per se. 

     



    Honestly, it didn't even occur to me that it read that way, but of course it does.  I was expressing my surprise that shupe - shupe! - was making me thinnk of the reaction to Thomas's last deal. 

    You may have noticed that most of the time when I write more than one long post going back and forth with someone, it's usually someone who's smart and should know better than to have a different take than mine.  That's why you never see NAS and I in extended discussions.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from asmaha. Show asmaha's posts

    Re: Rask Signed

    The Bruins will be spending $7.6M on the goaltender position next year.

    Taking a quick look at other teams in the ballpark: Anaheim spends $7.4, Buffalo $7.5, Calgary $9.5, Carolina $7.1, Columbus $6.3, Detroit $6.8, LA $6.3, Montreal $7.9, Nashville $7.0 (no backup signed), NJ $8.5, NYR $8.2, PHO $6.4, Pittsburgh $7.0

    Teams not on this list are running mostly in the $4.5-$6.0M range on the position, but you know what you get for that price? Crappy goaltending.

    There are certainly a few deals out there, mostly due to excellent players still working through old contracts - guys like Anderson, Niemi or Crawford. Kinda like Rask getting $3.5 last year. Sometimes you get lucky. Most times, you need to pay for consistent goaltending, and I don't think $7.6M on the position is much to worry about, especially since it eats up a whole bunch of free agency years, the Cap will go up as revenues go up, and in return, the Bs get a guy who just about every NHL GM would consider Top 5.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from DrCC. Show DrCC's posts

    Re: Rask Signed

    In response to Archer1's comment:

    Can someone please provide a link and/or financial numbers on this theory that the cap is going up next season? I haven't seen it anywhere...



    http://www.boston.com/sports/hockey/bruins/extras/bruins_blog/2013/06/jeremy_jacobs_bruins_will_spend_to_the_cap.html

    Relevant quote:

    [QUOTE]

    Jacobs considers 2013-14 a blip on the cap radar. Jacobs expects the 2014-15 cap to rise substantially based on projected NHL revenue.

    [/QUOTE]

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: Rask Signed

    In response to Archer1's comment:

    Can someone please provide a link and/or financial numbers on this theory that the cap is going up next season? I haven't seen it anywhere...



    Players were getting 54% of revenue.  The cap was 70 million.  It has been forced down to 64.3 for next year.  That's an 8% drop.  The following year it will revert to percentage based, but at 50%.  Assuming revenue stayed the same over two years, the cap would go up just because it went down too much this year.  But NHL revenues have been growing around 5% or more each year.  It should be expected that the cap should be 70 million next year, possibly more.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from asmaha. Show asmaha's posts

    Re: Rask Signed

    In response to OatesCam's comment:

    In response to Archer1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Can someone please provide a link and/or financial numbers on this theory that the cap is going up next season? I haven't seen it anywhere...

     



    Players were getting 54% of revenue.  The cap was 70 million.  It has been forced down to 64.3 for next year.  That's an 8% drop.  The following year it will revert to percentage based, but at 50%.  Assuming revenue stayed the same over two years, the cap would go up just because it went down too much this year.  But NHL revenues have been growing around 5% or more each year.  It should be expected that the cap should be 70 million next year, possibly more.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Which is also why Iginla's contract is awesome...let the bonuses hit next year's increased Cap. Crazy that after all this, Chiarelli can put a team on the ice to start the season without using LTIR for Savard. As long as the 3rd RW spot goes to a Providence guy, he can make it work. Then let Savard's salary be the piece that gets moved for an in-season trade or deadline deal.

    Great work in this "blip" of a Cap year, don't you think?

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from jpBsSoxFan. Show jpBsSoxFan's posts

    Re: Rask Signed

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    In response to jpBsSoxFan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    Funny you didn't mention that there are all kinds of capable and reliable back up goalies out there, cause the Bruins are going to need one. I don't mind the deal but given that Rask has been prone to injury, they need someone as insurance who can play 20-25 games a season. Please don't say Johnson is that guy, they are gonna have to do a hell of a lot better than that.

     

     

     

    It's not funny (odd or haha) that I didn't mention backup goalies.  Backups aren't the topic, are they?  Is the backup goalie much of a problem right now?  #AwesomeTeamProblems  I don't know anything about Johnson.  I didn't know anything about Khudobin.  I didn't study up on Auld.  I didn't start paying attention to Rask until Thomas went down.  I don't care about the backup goalie.  They come and go.


    Ready for Rask's injury list?  Better get a drink and some pretzels.  This tome is lengthy:

    2012/04/22 Missed 19 regular season and 5 playoff games (groin). 2012/03/04 Groin, sidelined indefinitely. 2010/03/09 Missed 3 games (undisclosed). 2010/03/04 Undisclosed, day-to-day.[/QUOTE]

    Last time I checked, having a capable back up goalie is pretty important these days in the NHL. Oh I forgot you don't care about back up goalies cause Rask is going to play all 82 games a season for the next 8 years.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Rask Signed

    In response to jpBsSoxFan's comment:


    Last time I checked, having a capable back up goalie is pretty important these days in the NHL. Oh I forgot you don't care about back up goalies cause Rask is going to play all 82 games a season for the next 8 years.



    Please, please, please let the B's bigges issue be the backup goalie. 

    The rest of your post there is garbage.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Rask Signed

    Wrote this elsewhere - Johnson is there to open the door and play the weaker opponent in back-to-backs.  They'll save a couple of hundred thousand dollars having an NHL minimum guy do that rather than Svedberg or Subban.  And if they need someone to play a game they don't want to trust to Johnson, call up Svedberg and play him, then send him back down.  And if Johnson really shows he can't handle NHL competition, send him down and call up one of hte Providence guys at the Olympic break.  Still save enough money to cover emergency call ups and other miscellaneous expenses, and any reduction in teh bonus cushion penalty the Bruins need is good.

    Johnson on the bench will have zero competitive impact. Sorry, approaching zero.  Conceivably, he could have to finish a key game Rask starts with the playoffs on the line late in the season.  But there are too many other opportunities to avoid that calamity to overlook the prudence of a cheap door opener.

     

    Are you not entertained?!?!

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Klaas. Show Klaas's posts

    Re: Rask Signed

     I response to abra-cadaver's statement:

    I agree to a large extent, however I do think that Rask is improving and better than Bryz. But as others have said, the salary cap is expected to rise, and in 3 or 4 years Rask's salary most likely will look reasonable. Finally, I think part of this contract is PC paying back Rask for taking low salaries in the past.

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Rask Signed

    In response to Bookboy007's comment: That's why you never see NAS and I in extended discussions.

    [/QUOTE]

    Huh, and all this time I thought it was because of the BFF thing. 


     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Rask Signed

    I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet but Rask was eligible for arbritation.

    The figure Rask could've brought to the table might have been more then what he had signed for. 

    Then what ? 



     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Rask Signed

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    That's why you never see NAS and I in extended discussions.



    Fargin Icehole!

    I hate you.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Rask Signed

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    In response to dezaruchi's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    A "smidiot" perhaps? To me,Shupe and Book are both awesome. I also didn't really think Book was calling him an idiot per se. 

     

     



    Honestly, it didn't even occur to me that it read that way, but of course it does.  I was expressing my surprise that shupe - shupe! - was making me thinnk of the reaction to Thomas's last deal. 

     

    You may have noticed that most of the time when I write more than one long post going back and forth with someone, it's usually someone who's smart and should know better than to have a different take than mine.  That's why you never see NAS and I in extended discussions.

    [/QUOTE]

    Sadly Book, too often it's only the nitwits that stand out to me. There truly are a number of really smart hockey minds who choose to post here but my God there are a lot of fools. I know that the smart people all realize I'm definitely not talking about them and that the nitwits are oblivious so it should work out that no one feels insulted. 

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from asmaha. Show asmaha's posts

    Re: Rask Signed

    OK...so this was a few days ago, but I really like this article. Seems to many that it is inevitable that goalie salaries are going to balloon in the years to come, and I really really think this Rask deal is going to be awesome in about 2 years. If not him, the Bs would have had to sign someone else to an absurdly big contract because that's where the market is heading. Might as well get the guy you want.

    http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/good-goalie-time-start-worrying-next-nhl-contract-205355477.html#more-63678

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from overpaid40. Show overpaid40's posts

    Re: Rask Signed


    Terrible mistake by the Bruins. Too many flaws in his playoff performances. First the Philly series, then the game seven against the leafs where he had to have his team win in miracle fashion after giving up a big lead, followed by giving up six goals in the finals when the Bruins had all the momentum. Three years at six million would of been better and far less risky.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostonfan191646. Show bostonfan191646's posts

    Re: Rask Signed

    In response to overpaid40's comment:


    Terrible mistake by the Bruins. Too many flaws in his playoff performances. First the Philly series, then the game seven against the leafs where he had to have his team win in miracle fashion after giving up a big lead, followed by giving up six goals in the finals when the Bruins had all the momentum. Three years at six million would of been better and far less risky.



    troll

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Rask Signed

    In response to overpaid40's comment:


    Terrible mistake by the Bruins. Too many flaws in his playoff performances. First the Philly series, then the game seven against the leafs where he had to have his team win in miracle fashion after giving up a big lead, followed by giving up six goals in the finals when the Bruins had all the momentum. Three years at six million would of been better and far less risky.



    Blah, blah, blah. Love your creative name. Get back to us when you get the Tim Thomas poster unstuck from your crotch. 

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Rask Signed

    In response to dezaruchi's comment:



    Blah, blah, blah. Love your creative name. Get back to us when you get the Tim Thomas poster unstuck from your crotch

     



    snatch.

     

Share