Saturday, 7 March 2009

Heh. So....

My bad.

When I referenced signing Strudwick to a 4 year deal (a couple or so posts ago) I must admit that I didn't look at his age. Given he is already 32 there is no way he gets a deal longer than 2 years. Maybe go 3 years if you can get him to agree to minimum (NHL) wage and you are willing to bury him in the minors for that 3rd year.

By the same token, depending on how one wants to maneuver with the first UFA year, there is no reason not to sign Brodziak, Reddox and Smid to deals as long as you can make them.

Why not sign Pouliot in the same fashion (next year)?

Because he is already at $900k+ and you don't even know what role he will play for you yet. As there is little chance he would want to sign for more than 3 years at low rate ($950k?) and because you don't know if he will progress beyond bubble status there is no point in making the kind of deal I propose.

i.e. replace with Nash or Eberle and try again.

The difference with Brodziak, et al is that you already know, beyond much doubt, that they will be able to fill their 3rd and 4th line roles just fine - so why risk a 20 goal season? Brodziak, especially, is a guy you want to lock-up at $950k or so as long as possible; he'll have a great year very soon (a la Stoll) and I would hate to pay for it earlier than I have to.

------

Have a great evening everyone.

1 comment:

Scott said...

The one difficulty with this line of thinking is that it may not allow for better options to come along. I could see many owners not wanting to pay Reddox for six years at NHL cash to play in the AHL and a buyout will hurt the cap. I would say that there is some significant risk and in a market where the cap may be heading down I would be uncomfortable with longer deals for players at the bottom of the roster.

The only other objection to deals signed for "as long as possible" is insuring them. I imagine a lot of teams would want to make sure that all the deals they sign can be insured. I forget whether it's six or seven years, but whichever it is, I think that's where the cut-off point needs to be.