deckercky
Registered User
- Oct 27, 2010
- 9,380
- 2,452
Wow, I didnt realize how many people would regret their original comments about the signing
Eriksson's contract was largely viewed as one of the better big contracts handed out that year (overpaid, but expected for a UFA). There were issues of fit in terms of team position, but Eriksson was a good player with demonstrated chemistry with the Sedins, coming off a good year. He was expected to be a solid contract for 3-4 years, followed by 2-3 years overpaid. Even at the end, Eriksson had a sterling defensive reputation, so was expected to be valuable to a younger team. It was shocking that his play immediately regressed year 1 to what was expected at the tail end of the contract.
There were issues with the Eriksson signing, but there was some logic so the contract was not immediately panned.
The Sutter extension was far more problematic, and given the presence of Sutter on the team, the subsequent Beagle contract was inexplicable.