Trading him was an option. It's not suddenly off the board because some random moron on a message board says so. Were you in the meetings or something or just sitting on your couch like you are now?.
Let me clarify: Trading him was not a realistic option. He definitely signed for more than I wanted/expected. That's kind of Murray's deal though. He signs pending UFAs for pretty "meh" contracts. Perry, Fowler, Kesler are prime examples. However, Perry and Fowler's deals were definitely market value. I think both easily get more if they hit the open market. for what it's worth, McKenzie said same thing. I'm not sure about Kesler's though. I've been adamant since day 1 that Bob rushed that signing.
No, I wasn't in the meetings, but if you think trading away arguably the teams best forward, who's in his prime, during the cup window, while also during a playoff run is realistic than I completely disagree. It's easy to say that we should have done that now, but again I think that's pretty lame because you're saying Murray should of done something that likely every GM would not have done.
Maybe you're grossly exaggerating how good you seem to think he's been?.
One of us is calling him an anchor, the other is saying he's a top 6/top 9 player still. I think it's pretty obvious which one of us is exaggerating.
No but I think you don't have to lock yourself into the contract. There were other options. What benefit is there now? You know, the present? Reality? Not your fictional world where it's a smart move to give max deals with NMC's to guys who can't live up to them. The price has to be paid at some point and now it's being paid sooner than anyone thought. That by itself shows he was grossly overpaid..
So again, you're okay with losing him for nothing? Or, in the middle of a playoff race, trade arguably your best player? You think the season ticket holders and owners are okay with that? Come on now. You're not being realistic. What's the last player of Perry's caliber (back then) that was traded during a playoff run? Players that made it known they were going to test the open market don't count either.
As far as the bold goes: That depends on how you define "overpaid". There's a strong case that every contract for star players, who hit free agency are overpaid. Do I think Perry was worth that much? No. Do I think Murray paid him market value? Yes. It's shit that the market was what it was then, but that's just what it was. I think McKenzie said it best back then: "Perry definitely left money on the table with that contract, but not a lot". Ideally Murray got him lower, but that was just the market. It's easy for you to say that it was a mistake now (HINDSIGHT), but even you can admit that it would have been extremely difficult then. Hell everyone here said about the same thing. Tough contract to swallow but necessary.
Well then stop jerking off to it. You hate the contract? Great, that's entirely my argument because it is in fact a bad contract that is hurting us NOW and in the YEARS TO COME. Other people passing out bad contracts like candy doesn't make it any better..
Like I said originally. No one said it wasn't a bad contract now. And quit the jerking off to it BS. I've said from the beginning that I didn't like that contract. Hating it now and saying it was a mistake then are two different things.
No the market being what it was doesn't make it any better. However, no, trading him or letting him walk then wasn't realistic. No GM would have let that happen. Feel free to provide comparable circumstances that show GMs willing to do that. in the unlikely circumstance that you do find one, now compare it to the number of guys who were not traded and re-signed. it's not close.
No by my logic you understand new messages can come from others in between replies. Why you equate new posts to editing past posts I have no clue..
You ridiculed my post saying several people had called Perry a top line winger. One person had then. You were wrong, unless you think several and one are the same thing. By this logic if I say "Lindholm scored in the 1st" and then he scored in OT, then I was right all along. that's wrong. Things changed. This isn't that hard.
The funny thing is there even more people that are saying he's a "1st line player" right now? That term is subjective. I know Angel said Perry would be on a few teams' first lines, but I bet he isn't calling him a 1st line player. Henrique would be Montreal's #1 center, but I wouldn't call him a "1st line center".
Cool, Murray did what had to do to keep Perry. I don't have to like it and I don't have to pretend Perry is something special in an NHL that puts a premium on speed which is the asset he coincidentally lost the quickest.
no one said you have to like it. We get it, you're upset. Again, no one likes that contract now. Some just don't think it's nearly as bad as you do.
The main thing that I'm pointing out is that it's very unfair to say Murray made some huge mistake when he signed him to that deal. Which is why I said it's easy to use hindsight like you're doing.
