In signing Vrbata, there are a few considerations:
1) Term
1a. When is Virtanen or Shinkaruk ready to step in?
By all likelyhood we're looking at a 2-3 year minimum period.
1b. Other teams.
At most, we would want a 3 year deal. Other teams are probably offering more term with less hit. We are in a position to offer more hit less term. There is a conflict here which is the first reason I don't think the deal will work. Unless, Vrbata is willing to accept a 2-3 year deal.
2) Impact
2a. Point Production
Assuming he gets around 50 points, this would be satisfactory as a non-playoff team. However, taking into consideration his linemates would likely be Bonino and Kassian and assuming both of those players hit the 40 point mark, our team's lack of offensive would not be addressed by this deal. The arguement would be it is better than what we have now. However, I would say in the preliminary stages of building our team, the difference between what a guy like Vey could produce (~30 points) to what Vrbata could produce (~50 points) is not significant enough to push us from a 10th place team to a 7th or 8th place team.
1b. Helping develop young kids by staying competitive
For reasons stated above, I don't believe an extra 20 points would make our team significantly better and not having a 50 point scorer wouldn't be detrimental to a developing young center. Secondly, unless we have a significant offensive 2nd line weapon, it may be beneficial to leave the 2nd line wing position open for Vey, Gaunce, or Horvat in case they show some serious offensive upside.
What I am getting at is obtaining Vrbata would make us better as we have a no-existent second line. However, I am proposing either a different alternative to obtain offence or staying with the players we have (I'd rather have Burrows or Vey play their offwing). I don't see Vrbata being the answer to our 2nd line woes or helping in development of our young players (which seem to be the two priorities).
