Frk It
Mo Seider Less Problems
- Jul 27, 2010
- 36,225
- 14,725
Could this be a power move on Babcock's part to get the roster that he wants? Its no secret that a lot of Holland's strategy with respect to keeping kids in the AHL is financially-motivated. Babs wants Jurco on the team, but this is a man's league and Jurco is only 21. With waiver eligibility.
Could this be a power move on Babcock's part to get the roster that he wants? Its no secret that a lot of Holland's strategy with respect to keeping kids in the AHL is financially-motivated. Babs wants Jurco on the team, but this is a man's league and Jurco is only 21. With waiver eligibility.
Could this be a power move on Babcock's part to get the roster that he wants? Its no secret that a lot of Holland's strategy with respect to keeping kids in the AHL is financially-motivated. Babs wants Jurco on the team, but this is a man's league and Jurco is only 21. With waiver eligibility.
Jurco on the roster is a short-term coache's move for best possible roster and Jurco partially out from the roster is a long-term GM move to control future caphits.
Both decisions have a valid point. There's no good or bad decisions.
I would put it this way:
Jurco with 50-60 total career (20-30 at this season) games will cost 950k with his next contract.
Jurco with 100 total (~70 at this season) career game will cost Tatar-money 2.5M with his next contract.
Jurco on the roster is a short-term coache's move for best possible roster and Jurco partially out from the roster is a long-term GM move to control future caphits.
Both decisions have a valid point. There's no good or bad decisions.
I would put it this way:
Jurco with 50-60 total career (20-30 at this season) games will cost 950k with his next contract.
Jurco with 100 total (~70 at this season) career game will cost Tatar-money 2.5M with his next contract.
Jurco on the roster is a short-term coache's move for best possible roster and Jurco partially out from the roster is a long-term GM move to control future caphits.
Both decisions have a valid point. There's no good or bad decisions.
We lit 2.5 million on fire this year, so play Jurco and then pay him if he puts up Tatar numbers.
I find the idea of purposefully making your roster worse to save some money down the line to be preposterous.
Hey now, hey now.
It might only be 1.5M.
Whatever. If you're going to pinch pennies on contracts to not play Jurco, don't go spend money on dumb ****.
I think he really wants to push for that 2nd cup and will see how we do this year then decide.
Fine by me. Get rid of the trash and hire Blash.
I would put it this way:
Jurco with 50-60 total career (20-30 at this season) games will cost 950k with his next contract.
Jurco with 100 total (~70 at this season) career game will cost Tatar-money 2.5M with his next contract.
Jurco on the roster is a short-term coache's move for best possible roster and Jurco partially out from the roster is a long-term GM move to control future caphits.
Both decisions have a valid point. There's no good or bad decisions.
I find the idea of purposefully making your roster worse to save some money down the line to be preposterous.
29 other fan bases would love our 'trash'.