Dorsett - what happened?

[arttk]

I agree with you that Dorsett and Sbisa deals stunk from the get go.

We will agree to disagree on the other 2 but i will leave you with this...

Burrows 1 point in 19 games. Higgins 1 point in 21 games.

Regarding Burrows, that was the contract you had to give to keep him at that time. Plus it was one of those statement contract that told everyone on the team if you take a pay cut, the team will still pay you fairly if you over perform that contract.

To lose him to UFA at that time would be well suicidal for any GM.
Fan favorite, scored probably the biggest goal for this franchise, played well in the last couple playoffs(at that point).

I think like every contract given to a vet that last till mid 30's, the risk will always be there but honestly if we didn't break the everyone take a little bit less culture, it wouldn't matter. It only matters now because of the all the other stupid contracts that is forcing us to think of ways to ease our cap situation.

 

[Havre]

Regarding Burrows, that was the contract you had to give to keep him at that time. Plus it was one of those statement contract that told everyone on the team if you take a pay cut, the team will still pay you fairly if you over perform that contract.

To lose him to UFA at that time would be well suicidal for any GM.
Fan favorite, scored probably the biggest goal for this franchise, played well in the last couple playoffs(at that point).

I think like every contract given to a vet that last till mid 30's, the risk will always be there but honestly if we didn't break the everyone take a little bit less culture, it wouldn't matter. It only matters now because of the all the other stupid contracts that is forcing us to think of ways to ease our cap situation.

I just don't believe that is true.

Who ever signs a contract with a discount in the first place just to get paid later? Except for the odd one year deal I just don't see it. Who would take the risk?

Burrows outperformed his previous contract, but it wasn't because he took a discount when signing it in my opinion.

If a player is in a situation where he has to choose between two offers. The best being from Vancouver, but since we let Burrows go the implications of your argument is that that player would then choose the second best option because who knows what happens in Vancouver later.

Why not turn it around? Wouldn't players want to win the cup? And wouldn't players then like to play for teams that don't gift contracts based on how they played not how they are predicted to play during that new contract?

 

[Cupless44]

I just don't believe that is true.

Who ever signs a contract with a discount in the first place just to get paid later? Except for the odd one year deal I just don't see it. Who would take the risk?

Burrows outperformed his previous contract, but it wasn't because he took a discount when signing it in my opinion.

If a player is in a situation where he has to choose between two offers. The best being from Vancouver, but since we let Burrows go the implications of your argument is that that player would then choose the second best option because who knows what happens in Vancouver later.

Why not turn it around? Wouldn't players want to win the cup? And wouldn't players then like to play for teams that don't gift contracts based on how they played not how they are predicted to play during that new contract?

You cannot sign players based on what they did in the past without looking forward. Yes Burrows played well with the Sedins and hit 25 goals 3 times in his career...but...the return on the 4 years at 4.5 for the player he has been since is nowhere near good enough.

You do not see a championship team like the Black Hawks operating like this. They make hard choices and move on from players who actually win cups to make the best decisions and contract signings going forward.

 

[Hit the post]

You cannot sign players based on what they did in the past without looking forward.

Kind of like what did Benning did with the subject of this thread.

 

[Cupless44]

Kind of like what did Benning did with the subject of this thread.

Actually what Benning did with Dorsett was just goofy

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

Kind of like what did Benning did with the subject of this thread.

Or Miller.

It isn't what happened with Burrows though. Burrows was signed to a deal that reflected his current status and future decline. He was paid 6M in his first year and then 1M less every season until next year when his salary falls to 3M.

I think because of the salary cap rules being the way it is, it sometimes clouds people's judgments in terms of thinking we are "overpaying" for players at the end of their contracts. But the truth of it is that we were able to pay 6M for Burrows a few years ago while only getting a 4.5M cap hit and we now have to pay the piper by taking a 4.5M cap hit next year even though we're only paying him 3M. That's the way it is.