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.