Friedman: Adin Hill likely re-signs with VGK - around 2 years @ 4.9 M AAV

CamPopplestone

Registered User
Sep 27, 2017
2,515
2,896
I think it's a deal where each side concedes a bit and takes risk, and overall is fair. Short term, so Hill doesn't get security, but he gets paid well, and since Thompson has a low contract it's fine. Vegas isn't on the hook long term even though they overpay on AAV

In this scenario I think it's better to have less term for Vegas
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ginger Papa

HanSolo

DJ Crazy Times
Apr 7, 2008
97,344
32,058
Las Vegas
Only 2 years is fine but this is an overpay. We can pretty much write off Barbashev coming back.

Definitely an internal reward for being the guy who got us a cup, maybe a little worry that Thompson isn't ready for fill time work yet.

I'm conflicted. I've really come to love Hill and he's always going to be a local legend for me as the guy who stood on his head as a relief goalie and way way way exceeded preseason expectations. But I think the cost is just too high in a situation where Vegas really needs to be managing their cap dollars.
 

Beerfish

Registered User
Apr 14, 2007
19,513
5,665
The sin is always term so Vegas is at least doing it right, over pay but for only two years.

In any case they can just LTIR him with a pinky strain which will get suddenly much better next playoff time if they have to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hotcabbagesoup

seafoam

Soft Shock
Sponsor
May 17, 2011
60,462
9,764
McCrimmon/Vegas can get themselve out of any contract so I don’t see much of any issue with this (even if on the surface level it seems like an overpay on the AAV).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Recipe Unlimited

innitfam

Registered User
Oct 18, 2017
2,927
2,167
I'm surprised they spent their $ here instead of trying to fit Barbashev in.
 

Zerotonine

Registered User
Apr 23, 2017
4,481
4,048
I mean Campbell got 5 years and he didn't win a cup so why not, hill will never repeat what he just did unfortunately but overpaying players off 1 year is pretty consistent in the NHL......
 

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
81,456
79,570
Redmond, WA
Here's the thing I don't understand: if you win with cheap goaltending and realize you don't need to spend significant money on goalies to win, why do you then immediately pay the cheap goalie you won with?

I don't remember the last time a team won with a cheap goalie, re-signed the cheap goalie to a sizable raise and the cheap goalie actually was a successful starter in the long run. It's probably Niemi because Murray and Binnington have mostly been flops.
 

Schenn

In Rod We Trust
Sponsor
Feb 24, 2009
34,091
4,007
Huron County
I'm thinking Lehners contract ends up in Arizona or maybe a team like Philly before the end of the offseason.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad