Confirmed with Link: Emelin extended for 4 years (4.1 Million per)

[Banjo Cat]

I guess it's nice to make our players feel happy and well-compensated, but Bergevin seems to be picking some strange battles (Subban) in the midst of some of this largesse.

That battle was not in the midst of the largesse though. That battle occurred before all this other 'largesse'.

 

[Kriss E]

Kriss, I was very vocal against signing Briere. So that argument (always support Bergevin) falls flat on its face.

Nothing is guaranteed in the NHL. Players will get hurt who have been healthy. Injured players will be re-injured. Injured players will finish their careers with no further problems.

Emelin is the type of DMan who will help this team. And if we are not willing to pay current value for his contract, other teams will.

People seem to have forgotten the collapse of the Habs last season.....shortly after Emelin went out with his knee injury.

Regarding DD, shall we now take the Gainey approach because of one player not living up to expectations? Wait until the last possible moment to try to sign them and then just see them walk away for nothing?

Which is worse? Taking a gamble? Or doing nothing for fear of taking a gamble and then react impulsively because we did nothing?

Except that I don't see how Emelin is worth 4.1M after 105 games in the NHL, not to mention his big injury that has made him sit out since April. But hey, I don't particularly mind the contract, I just don't think the timing was right. I would have liked to see him come back and see he can contribute as much as he did before (while improving) before though.

I said it last year, the injury with Emelin wasn't the cause of our downfall. It was nothing more than a coincidence. He wasn't even playing that well and Markov was also struggling. But if you didn't want to believe it then and was dead set on thinking Emelin going down was the cause of our downfall, then please explain why we are doing just fine without him this year??? Emelin was not the one holding us together last year, it certainly didn't help us, but he wasn't the reason why we started sucking.

Why does it have to be wait until the end of the year?? Is there a rule I'm not aware of that says you need to re-sign UFAs in by November otherwise you need to wait for June? Can we not sign him in December? January? February?..Who's saying to wait until the season is over?


Again, I don't mind re-signing Emelin. I'm not saying we shouldn't have done it. But if we were going to do it this early, with him having so little NHL experience, and being out with a serious injury for 7months, without having seen him take contact yet, I'd have wanted him to take in cheaper dollars.

 

[DAChampion]

Kriss,

You have not justified your market model, specifically your assumption that Emelin at 4.1 million is not a discount.

 

[Stoneburg]

I find it amazing that so many people are saying we overpaid Emelin, and how risky the signing is, yet after Markov played 65 games over three seasons, the majority here did not think signing him was risky (I did, and I was wrong).

Yes, it is is risky, but it also risky to put these things off. Maybe Emelin's agent was pushing for an early signing? You just never know with these things.

 

[Kriss E]

Kriss,

You have not justified your market model, specifically your assumption that Emelin at 4.1 million is not a discount.

I'm not focusing so much on the contract. As I said, it's the timing.
For a guy that has so little experience, that's been away from the game for 7months, that still hasn't partaken in a contact practice, that's still some time away from coming back, to sign so early, I would have figured he'd get cheaper money.
If he was back in action and doing well, then it would have made more sense to me.

We're not talking about a proven player here, and my assessment of him might be different from other fans (clearly it seems to be).
I thought Emelin was a default top 4, not an established one. He still was struggling with his positioning a lot.

 

[Hoople]

Couldn't we split the difference though and have him a play some games first? I'm okay with giving him a contract for four years if he comes back and plays well but why now?

I dont disagree with your first statement.

I think that people need to sit back and watch Emelin this season and once we see the results of his play, then we pass judgement on Bergevin.......positively or negatively.

A lot of the talk on this thread is reactionary with no basis in reality.

 

[Kriss E]

I dont disagree with your first statement.

I think that people need to sit back and watch Emelin this season and once we see the results of his play, then we pass judgement on Bergevin.......positively or negatively.

A lot of the talk on this thread is reactionary with no basis in reality.

That's not the point.

The point is that people thought we could have had him signed to a better deal.

 

[Saintpatrick*]

I sure hope they don't wait till the last minute to sigh Subban now. I have a feeling that this is definitely impacts whether we resign Markov and Gionta. I don't think either will be resigned IMO

 

[Bring Bak Damphousse]

My two cents...

While I'm glad we've got Emelin wrapped up for a couple more years, I do question the timing of this extension, the money isn't horrible (though it is on the high side) for a guy with under two seasons NHL experience and coming off a pretty significant injury, I'd have either expected him to sign in the 3-3.5 range or for Bergevin to wait until Emelin had played a few games, to see how he bounces back. That being said Emelin does add an element to our D that we are sorely lacking, and I'm sure had he made it to free agency he'd be looking at 4-4.5 a year, I can just see the Bruins signing him and making us pay for the next 5 years.