Sam Gagner what a joke

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

    Re: Sam Gagner what a joke

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    Sorry, shupe, but a lack of precedent doesn't mean you've backed it up.  And all the points about never having been the starter for a full season are nice if you're going to go to arbitration, but they're pretty useless when negotiating with a guy who has a choice - sign with you long term on a deal where you're using the fact he's an RFA to gain leverage, or go to arbitration, play out a one or two year deal (and ask for Rinne money anyway), and then take what the market will bear.  Those are really the only options.  You're not going to force him to take a Howard-like deal just because Howard did.  If you're the team, you're options are basically plan to move on without him when the market dictates he's worth $7M+ or, if you believe Rask's record is indicative of how he'll play as a starter over the next 8 years, sign him at market now.  Those are really your only options.

    I don't think the short seasons as a starter are an issue.  I think Rask has shown over four years that he's pretty much the same goalie night after night after night.  That's why I understand the deal - those chose to lock down a known quantity at market or slightly above (to buy 7 UFA years) rather than gamble on the most important issue on the ice.  That's two things the Bruins did repeatedly during the nearly 40 years without a Cup.  They changed that with Chiarelli and have now won a Cup and come within a hair's breadth of another.  Can something bad happen and then they're stuck with Rask?  Sure.  But if you're willing to accept a 6 year deal at a $5.3 cap hit, I don't see how two more years and less than $2M more cause you to cringe.

    Again, not trying to change your mind, but still having trouble understanding your thinking beyond not liking the commitment because things could go sour.

     

     

    Are you not entertained?!?!



    the same over 4 yrs.  As a backup.  He hasnt had to play just about every night.  Hes sat and got in every 3rd game.  zero pressure bottom line he didnt earn that deal with his play.  He earned it on what might be based on a backups numbers.  

    The blackhawks walked away from Niemi after winning the cup with him.   Hes been pretty steady for san jose, chicago has another cup.  

    Youve provided a goose egg for examples. Zero.  I asked for one.  You cant.  Bc there are none.   We grossly overpaid this guy.   I even asked who would offer sheet him?   I remember a few yrs back when vokoun was a ufa everyone thought massive deal.  He got diddly.  TT is still out there, schneider who has the same chance to be great as rask was dealt to keep loungo, bryz bought out, dipietro bought out, mason terrible contract, fleury terrible contract, price i think is an awesome goalie but right now?  Terrible contract, miller?  Likely to be dealt.  Anaheim has two vy good starters.  Halak who had a fantastic playoff run knocking off the mighty caps and pens in what was just as spectacular as rask got dealt.  Whats he doing now?   

    When rasks groin flares up bc of over work on an unproven goalie please think of me when we are watching a terrible goalie filling in.  we didnt even add a veteran to be a backup to help rask bc we couldnt.  Lots of fantastic backups around that are cheap and great at being a backup.  

    I sort of understand paying a contract to rinne bc his numbers were awesome as a starter.   I get paying price bc he was fantastic in complete seasons.   I dont get paying rask the highest deal when there are simply only maybe a handful of teams that would or could pay him.  

    Lets see how many of these large deals for goalies work out.  Bc if you can name any at the moment or in the past that were great i might be a bit more convinced.  As of right now.  You have failed to do that.  Meanwhile my list of failed deals is large.   

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Sam Gagner what a joke

    First, I think you are 100% correct when you ask who else was going to pay him.

    Shupe, do you think you will feel the same way about the Rask contract four to five years from now?

    I think after four to five years, your thoughts on this will change, if not sooner. By that time he will be one of the elite goaltenders, on a team that contends every year in aleague where goalies who arent as good as him will be making close to what he is getting.

    Also, I dont think the Luongo contract is a bad one, I think he's lived up to that. The Quick deal, will end up looking like the steal of the century before it expires and I think Fleury bounces back.
     




     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Sam Gagner what a joke

    In response to kelvana33's comment:

    First, I think you are 100% correct when you ask who else was going to pay him.

    Shupe, do you think you will feel the same way about the Rask contract four to five years from now?

    I think after four to five years, your thoughts on this will change, if not sooner. By that time he will be one of the elite goaltenders, on a team that contends every year in aleague where goalies who arent as good as him will be making close to what he is getting.

    Also, I dont think the Luongo contract is a bad one, I think he's lived up to that. The Quick deal, will end up looking like the steal of the century before it expires and I think Fleury bounces back.
     






    Kelv,  i hi jacked this thread.  Loungos contract per year isnt terrible.  Its the length.  and he got that after he was established, same as Quick, fleury i agree has too much talent to be this terrible.  But its more evidence how goalies are not stable.  there are very few money goalies any more.  i think price is one of the best goalies in the world.  He had some up and downs and played awesome to get that deal.  Now everyone says what a joke.  

    I hope i dont feel worse about his deal.  Thats all im hoping for.  I personally think rask is the product of a great system.  I think he benefits from a great team in front of that system. 

    he better perform.  I mean best in the world perform.  He wants the contract well the play goes with it.  for as well as he played against pitt.  I still think that was a fantastic game plan.  What sticks in my mind more is two games 7s.  In one he held a 3-0 lead and lost.  Also lost a 3-0 series lead.  The other was this yr in game 7 against the leafs.  down 4-1 before the team stormed back.  Again leading 3-1 in series.  To me that is not a money keeper.  It brings a lot of doubt to me.   Im glad everyone else thinks different.  I dont.  His play will prove my doubt wrong.  

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: Sam Gagner what a joke

    Cant disagree with anything there Shupe. Funny you mention the product of a system though. My brother thinks he is a terrific goalie but playing for the Bruins makes him better. he said lock up Khudobin for 3 to 4 years, (he easily takes 1 million a year per) and put the money towards a player or players. Goalie numbers might not be as good, but the drop off wouldnt be as drastic as people think, and it would totally be negated by the fact that the team is that much better in front of him with the money invested it in it. He thinks Khudobin is pretty good and by the time his contract is up, Subban jumps in at a relative cheap price.  All in the while keeping a cheap veteran back up in case.

    I'll tell ya, I'm a big Rask fan, but that isnt a bad idea.

    I still cant beleive Edmonton didnt go after Khudobin. I think he would have been perfect there and would have suprised alot of people.

    If your hi jacking threads with this Rask contract talk, I'm an accomplice.

     




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

    Re: Sam Gagner what a joke

    In response to kelvana33's comment:

    Cant disagree with anything there Shupe. Funny you mention the product of a system though. My brother thinks he is a terrific goalie but playing for the Bruins makes him better. he said lock up Khudobin for 3 to 4 years, (he easily takes 1 million a year per) and put the money towards a player or players. Goalie numbers might not be as good, but the drop off wouldnt be as drastic as people think, and it would totally be negated by the fact that the team is that much better in front of him with the money invested it in it. He thinks Khudobin is pretty good and by the time his contract is up, Subban jumps in at a relative cheap price.  All in the while keeping a cheap veteran back up in case.

    I'll tell ya, I'm a big Rask fan, but that isnt a bad idea.

    I still cant beleive Edmonton didnt go after Khudobin. I think he would have been perfect there and would have suprised alot of people.

    If your hi jacking threads with this Rask contract talk, I'm an accomplice.

     






    I love your brothers thinking bc i think the same.  Edmonton was foolish not to grab him.  I thought they would for sure as well.  Ference would have been there with him.  

    Im glad Rask is back.  Actually very happy.  I hate the contract...a lot!  

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

    Re: Sam Gagner what a joke

       I agree with Shupe (not sure if that helps, or hurts him more). With only 30 #1 jobs available, the leverage in goalie contracts, belongs to the GM's. Why don't they use it?

    Because, they know that if any of these big money, long-term deals backfire, and the team starts missing the playoffs, and they end up getting fired, GM's with a recent Stanley Cup on their resume, will get re-hired within the week, and will be collecting pay checks from two teams.

    The fans meanwhile, will be the ones left watching a team, handcuffed with long-term deals on players that are injured more than they play.

    It may happen. It may not. But the risk of these deals, falls on the fans. The gm's can go elsewhere and start all over again. The fans have nowhere to go.

    For those that say, if Bergeron goes down like Marc Savard, they will just put him on LTIR, and free up that cap space, should remember that they could have used that Savard money for the past 2 years, and didn't, even though they were Cup contenders. They only used it this year, because the cap dropped, and the team was in a real bind.

    The list of goalies that have played well for a limited time, then had their game decline, is extensive, so long-term deals for ANY goalie, will always be a bad idea.

    Luongo is a very good goalie, has a reasonable cap hit, and seems to be rarely injured, and  Vancouver could not GIVE that contract away, because of the term.

    As a fan, I hope the last two players signed, have 8 years of good health and continued great performances.But maybe because I am a fan, I cannot discount  a level of trepidation with the signing of these two contracts.

     

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

    Re: Sam Gagner what a joke

    I agree, shupe – let’s see how many of these deals work out.  Right now?  I don’t have any faith that the ones you cite on your large list of bad deals are in any way useful to generalize.  For one thing, it's not a very long list in the grand scheme of things - a few from the beginning of the cap era, a Flyer, an Islander and...? For every Bryzgalov, there’s a Brodeur deal or a Lundqvist deal that worked out just fine for more than 5 years.   Mason doesn’t have a terrible contract – I’ve corrected you on that before, but you keep citing it.  He got a three year sub-$3M deal.  Price is one year into his deal and had a bad year.   Are we saying that no goalie with a big deal can have a bad year?  Do we say that for every player?  But you keep asking me for an example under very specific circumstances, and I really don’t think the lack of one matters in this case.  The Bruins succession planned their goaltending – how many teams can have a Vezina calibre goalie (comparable to the nominees both years he was the starter) on the bench because they have the Vezina winner in the net?  I think Rask’s comment encapsulates the view from both sides – they kept Rask on the bench for years with the intention of having him become the  starter, but they didn’t pay him until he proved it without a TT safety net.  He did, so now he’s paid like a front-line starter. 

    Your back-up point isn’t exactly true, Shupe.  He was the starter in 2009-10 but only assumed that role part way into the season because the guy he took it from was the reigning Vezina winner.  He played 45 games that year and played through long stretches without a rest – March 11-30, for example, he played 10 games in 19 days.  Twice in that stretch they tried to rest him and he had to relieve, and both times he was perfect in relief.  He’s shown he can go every second day for a long stretch on more than one occasion and his number have been as good or better than when he’s been the backup.  His career numbers are .929 and 2.15.  His two years as the starter, they’re .930 and 1.98.   Those two years as starter are separated by two years, so he didn’t just get hot.  I have more faith in 81 games of playing at that level when they are split by a period of time than I would if it was one year a la Jim Carey.  Sure, you could follow the Chicago move of dealing with your Cap issues by ditching your starter - who was a Vezina runner-up this year - but do you think they might have won a playoff series between then and now if they hadn't been relying on the untested Crawford?  Eventually, he put it together.  Eventually.

    I think you’re compounding two issues so that neither can be viewed on its own: limited evidence for how Rask performs as the starter and length of deal.  If you don’t think he’s a starter because the evidence doesn’t support it, then you don’t think he’s a starter regardless of how long the deal.  I get wanting more evidence, but you just don’t take a calculated risk with the only NHL goalie in your entire system when you’re a Cup contender coming off of a very close series.  And letting him go to market is a huge risk.  Calgary could very easily come in with a bigger deal than the Bruins offered – next year, when there’s no compensation.  And if you think he’s the starter but goalies are weird, then I don’t see how the difference between 5 and 7 years makes you feel better.

    Lastly, I don’t understand why Bruins fans who lived through years of their team trying to underpay every player and developing a rep as a team that didn’t value its own are complaining about a GM whose contract decisions have either proven shrewd or who has cleaned up his own messes very effectively (ditch FA Morris; deal spare parts for Seidenberg).

    I’m trying not to dog you on this, but you keep slipping in the Rask digs at every opportunity.  It’s “we’ll see”.

     

     

     

    Are you not entertained?!?!

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

    Re: Sam Gagner what a joke

    "His career numbers are .929 and 2.15.  His two years as the starter, they’re .930 and 1.98.   Those two years as starter are separated by two years, so he didn’t just get hot."

     

    There is no way around ^this^!





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

    Re: Sam Gagner what a joke

    Book-

    I think that i have proven in my pts over history that long goalie deals are bad in general.  Especially ones where they are the highest paid player on the team.   I have given dipetro as basis for dont give a guy something he hasnt earned debate, i have given the bryz contract as dont react based on a few numbers in a great system like the coyotes have.  I have listed recent stars like price who is laughed at in here by most bc he had one off year after the deal.   I listed loungo to strengthen any pt that he even admits its a bad deal, its so bad no team wanted him and they had to deal the younger player.  I listed Halak who had an amazing playoff run and now well they are ying to trade him.   

    I know rask was a starter in 2010.  That was four yrs ago and TT was off his game or he would have backed him up that year as well.  He played 45 games or one third of his starts that year, the next 3 he never ecplised 30.  

    I look at many good teams in the league and they dont pay their goalie the highest on the team.   And rask name should be no where near a conversation with the best goalie of all time or king H.  He has done absolutely nothing to be mentioned in the same breath as those two.  Brodeur is a once in a lifetime type goalie, king h has been constitantly great...didnt happen over night.  

    As for the crawford debate, as a rookie he took his team from being down 3-1 and forced a game 7 against the conference champs and lost in OT. That team was depleated and he was their best player.   No i dont think niemi wins them that series.  Last year they ran into smith and a lost hossa, it happens but he wasnt to blame for that loss either.  Then he wins a cup this year.  I think what he did is the exact mold a team should take with a young goalie.   Hes been the starter 3 yrs.  and likely could have won conn in this yrs playoffs.  

    Ive seen manny fernadez and your mentioning of jim carey as great examples   Goalies are certainly entitled to off yrs.   not when you are being paid the highest amount on the team that just went to 2 cups in 3 yrs.   heavy wears the crown.  He better be able to play 65+ games a year of excellent hockey and produce elite numbers.   

    You say you have faith in rasks numbers but fail to see that he hasnt done it over an 82 game schedule.   You fail to recognize that he is in the best system in hockey over the last 4 yrs.  see above posts between kelv and i.   I believe khudo could have handled the role as starter and done well.   As you say rask is the only goalie we have in the system, its the same reason we had to rid this team of seguin and probably more next year

    You can dog me as much as you want bc i am more then ok with my stance on this.  Past present and future have dictated that these deals in general are bad news.  Next year we likely wave bye bye to seidz, chara has been a brilliant warrior and ice hog.   Is rask gonna be great without that wall in front of him?   

    Would you not agree that his every game with that contract is gonna be hard to live up to.  Highest paid goalie, highest paid player on the team.   Elite status for one half season in 2010 as the starter.  Then 2 yrs playing every 3rd game with no pressure on the best defensive team in hockey, then one shortened lockout yr.    

    Answer me this as well.  When is the last time a team won the cup with a goalie as their highest paid player, then answer me when that deal was done.   

    And while we are at it please respond or give me your thoughts on my issue of his 2 game 7s.   We cant play the what if game.   But for sake of the dez rule lets.   Had rask lost game 7 to the leafs meaning two epic collapses.   Do you think rask gets this deal?   3-0 lead in 2010 after holding a 3-0 series lead.   4-1 behind with 10 minutes remaining with 10 minutes before the miracle comeback.  To me those are very telling signs of a goalie that doesnt play well in big games.  Its all i can go off bc he hasnt been around long enough.  

    If your name is patrick roy or marty brodeur and have a career that they had i can undertsand paying them elite money and the highest in the league.   I cant for one minute say this about rask.  Had he been a starter for 3-4 yrs running and provided those numbers i still wouldnt pay him the highest on the team.   The fact that he hasnt done this makes me even more sceptical.  

    I think this deal short and long term hurts the team more then it helps.   Heavy wears the crown.  He better be the best player on the ice every night with this deal.  He better be ready to play 65+ gms a year, he better stay healthy as possible, he better win!   If he doesnt do these things it will be a terrible contract.  

    We will wait and see what happens.   We obviously disagree to the max with this issue and its one i hope in time i am completely wrong with.   

    Cheers.   

     

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

    Re: Sam Gagner what a joke

    Rask won't be the highest paid Bruin until 2018. Why is it so imperative that he now be the "best player" every night?


    "wow,check out all of the losers in here......"

    -Gerry Dee
     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Sam Gagner what a joke

    Who cares if the goalie is the highest paid player or the lowest paid player?  We can all agree that it is an essential position for any team to compete for a Cup, and the Bruins currently have one of the best in the league.  So how do you keep him, or find a better option?

    Unless you believe his past performance was a fluke, you have to try to keep him, and to do that you have to hit the market price (which many teams would probably be happy to do in a year).

    I keep coming back to the two questions that Book has been asking:

    -What is the other option?  You really want to let Rask walk and sign Khudo...for the cap space...?  I think the Bruins had very limited negotiating options on this.

    -If he is good enough to keep and pay for 5 years, why not 7 years?  He's still young and he probably wants to max term.  Another team is likely to offer him that if you wait another year.  

    Lots of times long contracts don't work out, and I think PC has been very shrewd in only giving them to key, proven players (Chara, Bergeron).  Rask could've taken a long contract last year, but he was happy to prove himself to management for another season.  He did it.  And if it was a short season it was also a very condensed season.  Lots of games packed in and he did great.  There are no sure things and calculated gambles must be taken on players.  I don't see how you can oppose that concept, although I would always share the concern that any long contract might not work out.

    It's better than the alternatives.  If you must take the risk of big contracts, build up the middle -- Rask, Chara, Bergeron.  I like the odds that this is a winning foundation.  I like it better than cap space.

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

    Re: Sam Gagner what a joke

    In response to shuperman's comment:

    (snip)

    As you say rask is the only goalie we have in the system, its the same reason we had to rid this team of seguin and probably more next year

    (snip)



    I just want to point out that this is simply not true.  The money was/still is there to have kept Seguin.  Right now they could trade Eriksson back for Seguin and still have a cap compliant roster.  

     

    Edit: Wait... Sam who?

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

    Re: Sam Gagner what a joke

    Shupe,

    I think we agree on the fact that we both hope you’re completely wrong.

    Look, I don’t “fail” to see any of the things you’ve identified.  I just don’t interpret them the way you do, and I’m just as comfortable as you are in how I’ve argued my interpretation.  Where we disagree on the way you support your position is that you can’t compare pre-Cap to post-Cap or pre-modern UFA/RFA system to post, and that means there really isn’t enough evidence to say if a long-term deal for a goalie who has been superb whenever he’s played is a good idea or not.  Even if I could find a situation I think is sufficiently similar to Rask’s (Fuhr splitting time with Moog his first years in Edm?  Vernon working in behind Lemelin in Calgary?), they aren’t likely to have happened in the last 6 years of the Cap, and are only slightly more likely to have occurred in the last 20.

    Pre-cap and back-diving deals, there weren’t a lot of long-term deals.  DiPietro was given that deal because the Isles thought it would help them with the Cap.  Nothing to do with him deserving it.  Bryzgalov was signed as a UFA by the Flyers – not sure what that proves other than that the Flyers are stupid when it comes to goaltending and UFAs (certainly no more stupid with Snyder’s money when it comes to goaltenders than any other position).  He was almost instantly useless.  No bearing on the length of the deal other than that they have to eat a lot more money because of it. 

    Telling me I can’t use Lundqvist and Brodeur as comparables is seeding the deck, isn’t it?  Am I only allowed to use headcases and players for whackjob owners as my comparables, or do I get to show comparables to the kind of a goalie who is capable of consistently putting up the numbers – back up or starter – over 4-5 years and at every level of play – the way Rask has to date?  I think the lesson here is not what you think.  I see the lesson as – use your judgement.  If your guy is the right guy, a longer deal can pay off.  If you go grasping at UFA straws or think you’re beating the cap, you might just burn yourself.

    I’ll answer your direct questions, but you realize this one is ridiculous, right?: When is the last time a team won the cup with a goalie as their highest paid player, then answer me when that deal was done? 

    So you’re limiting this to cup-winning teams, then the goalie has to be the highest paid player, and then you’re implying that that might have happened, but if it did, that goalie probably was a veteran when he signed the contract.  This is ridiculous in part because over about 30 years, not that many goalies won the Stanley cup.  Brodeur has 3, Roy 4, Fuhr 3, Barasso 2, Vernon 2.  That’s about half of the available Cups.

    But logically, this is really two questions, and if you answer yes to both, then you should have your answer to the question you’ve asked.  Can a goalie without a proven track-record win a Cup?  Yes.  Crawford (considered Chicago’s Achilles heel going into the year).  Niemi.  Cam Ward as a rookie.  Patrick Roy as a rookie. Etc.  Can you win with a goalie as your highest paid player?  Yes, if you let me use non-headcases…or even with the occasional headcase because, well, goalies.  Detroit won in 2001-02, Hasek made $500K less than Lidstrom.  The next year, Brodeur was the highest paid Devil.  When the Avs won, they had first 1 guy (Forsberg) then 4 guys making more than Roy, but Roy was making $1.5M more than Rask will get next year, and in 2000 dollars.  So can you win a Cup with a goalie without a track record who is also your highest paid player?  Yes.  It can happen.  With the right goalie.

    So can the guy who was in net for “The Collapse” and for the son of the Collapse this year be “the right goalie”?  I don’t know that he gets the same dollar figure if the Leafs win game 7 this year in part because then we don’t see him backstop the Bruins for three solid rounds and within seconds of game 7.  In 2010, a team that had been struggling all year lost its top offensive player and crashed back to earth.  Should Rask have stolen one of the four?  Maybe.  But that was a team failure.  Which of the goals against the Leafs in game 7 do you hang on Rask?  How many were defensive breakdowns and giveaways and all around sloppy play by the club?  It could have been much, much worse, and he made more than a few beauties to enable the comeback. In the end, it seems ridiculous to criticize him for a win.

    I look at this and see a guy my eyes tell me is a terrific goalie, who the stats tell me is a terrific goalie – that we may be in the second act of one of the longest periods of goaltending excellence the Bruins have ever had (since that last TT).  And that he’s locked in for 8 years.  And I think that’s a good bet.  It feels to me like, in response to this, you’re throwing a lot of what ifs – what if he can’t do it over 65 games a year?  What if he loses his focus because there are goalies who’ve done that?  What if he has one down year?  What if he gets injured?  That’s what “he hasn’t played enough” amounts to: I want more data to feel good about the what ifs.

    Anyway – shupe – this is an all-due-respect discussion.  We aren’t going to agree, but it sure is making summer hockey talk more entertaining to have the conversation

    Cheers.

     

     

     

    Are you not entertained?!?!

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

    Re: Sam Gagner what a joke

    Can we change the title of this thread to 'long, multi-paragraph response lovers only'?

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Sam Gagner what a joke

    Sam Gagner certainly doesn't deserve the money if he can't even hold a thread into the 2nd page before being bumped by the Rask chronicles.

    If he's a more dynamic player, the Rask debate invades the Jagr or Iginla threads instead.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from G4ck5. Show G4ck5's posts

    Re: Sam Gagner what a joke

    So I guess Edm decieded to give him 4.8 mill a year for 3 years at 14.4mill. Still over paid IMO

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

    Re: Sam Gagner what a joke

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:

    Who cares if the goalie is the highest paid player or the lowest paid player?  We can all agree that it is an essential position for any team to compete for a Cup, and the Bruins currently have one of the best in the league.  So how do you keep him, or find a better option?

    Unless you believe his past performance was a fluke, you have to try to keep him, and to do that you have to hit the market price (which many teams would probably be happy to do in a year).

    I keep coming back to the two questions that Book has been asking:

    -What is the other option?  You really want to let Rask walk and sign Khudo...for the cap space...?  I think the Bruins had very limited negotiating options on this.

    -If he is good enough to keep and pay for 5 years, why not 7 years?  He's still young and he probably wants to max term.  Another team is likely to offer him that if you wait another year.  

    Lots of times long contracts don't work out, and I think PC has been very shrewd in only giving them to key, proven players (Chara, Bergeron).  Rask could've taken a long contract last year, but he was happy to prove himself to management for another season.  He did it.  And if it was a short season it was also a very condensed season.  Lots of games packed in and he did great.  There are no sure things and calculated gambles must be taken on players.  I don't see how you can oppose that concept, although I would always share the concern that any long contract might not work out.

    It's better than the alternatives.  If you must take the risk of big contracts, build up the middle -- Rask, Chara, Bergeron.  I like the odds that this is a winning foundation.  I like it better than cap space.



    key proven players!   

    Lots of alternatives out there.   Ryan was dealt for less then Seguin.  How about adding Hillier with Ryan for Seguin, Bart + a little.   Just one example   Lots of options available.  

    I think that his performance has ? written all over it based on never playing a complete 82 gms as a starter.  I also question his big game ability as i pointed out from his game 7 performances.  I keep asking questions that dont get answered as well.  Its bc we disagree on the topic.  

    others teams would be happy sign him.  Who are all these teams?   Would he want to go there?  Would he be exposed in calgary?  

    fletch i get the concept of locking a proven player up.  Why do all others players need to prove it.  Rask hasnt.  Yes he had a great year.   He played a university schedule.  

    Anyway, pretty sure everyone knows i hate this deal.   no more from me on this.  Thats my promise.  I dont agree with whatever you, book, dez, san, nas write about it.(5 of my favorites for the record along with a short list of others).  

    I hate it!

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Sam Gagner what a joke

    In response to shuperman's comment:

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:

     

    Who cares if the goalie is the highest paid player or the lowest paid player?  We can all agree that it is an essential position for any team to compete for a Cup, and the Bruins currently have one of the best in the league.  So how do you keep him, or find a better option?

    Unless you believe his past performance was a fluke, you have to try to keep him, and to do that you have to hit the market price (which many teams would probably be happy to do in a year).

    I keep coming back to the two questions that Book has been asking:

    -What is the other option?  You really want to let Rask walk and sign Khudo...for the cap space...?  I think the Bruins had very limited negotiating options on this.

    -If he is good enough to keep and pay for 5 years, why not 7 years?  He's still young and he probably wants to max term.  Another team is likely to offer him that if you wait another year.  

    Lots of times long contracts don't work out, and I think PC has been very shrewd in only giving them to key, proven players (Chara, Bergeron).  Rask could've taken a long contract last year, but he was happy to prove himself to management for another season.  He did it.  And if it was a short season it was also a very condensed season.  Lots of games packed in and he did great.  There are no sure things and calculated gambles must be taken on players.  I don't see how you can oppose that concept, although I would always share the concern that any long contract might not work out.

    It's better than the alternatives.  If you must take the risk of big contracts, build up the middle -- Rask, Chara, Bergeron.  I like the odds that this is a winning foundation.  I like it better than cap space.

     



     

    key proven players!   

    Lots of alternatives out there.   Ryan was dealt for less then Seguin.  How about adding Hillier with Ryan for Seguin, Bart + a little.   Just one example   Lots of options available.  

    I think that his performance has ? written all over it based on never playing a complete 82 gms as a starter.  I also question his big game ability as i pointed out from his game 7 performances.  I keep asking questions that dont get answered as well.  Its bc we disagree on the topic.  

    others teams would be happy sign him.  Who are all these teams?   Would he want to go there?  Would he be exposed in calgary?  

    fletch i get the concept of locking a proven player up.  Why do all others players need to prove it.  Rask hasnt.  Yes he had a great year.   He played a university schedule.  

    Anyway, pretty sure everyone knows i hate this deal.   no more from me on this.  Thats my promise.  I dont agree with whatever you, book, dez, san, nas write about it.(5 of my favorites for the record along with a short list of others).  

    I hate it!



    But you're wrong....

    Cheers.

     

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

    Re: Sam Gagner what a joke

    PS.  I love you all.  And when im right on this on numerpus occasions i wont say i told you so.  

    Cheers.  

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

    Re: Sam Gagner what a joke

    But you hope you're wrong.

    Rumour has it, Gagner was afraid his inability to hold a thread would ruin his shot at $5M+ so he caved.

     

     

    Are you not entertained?!?!

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

    Re: Sam Gagner what a joke

    Rask's deal will be a bargain after the next round of goalies get paid and the cap increases. His salary will be an increasingly reasonable % of the team payroll for many years to come.

    You gotta look forward on this deal - don't look back for comps.

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share