Confirmed with Link: Rask signed

[PatriceBergeronFan]

god this is the most spoiled, out of touch fanbase in all of sports. like wtf

?

 

[smithformeragent]

I'm not a fan of the deal. How does it benefit the Bruins in any way? Rask wins on both term and value. Again, I'm not suggesting the B's go back to the Sinden days and bust balls with their stars over pennies, but the fact is this is a new age and the Jacobs are going to spend to the cap now that they have their cost certainty so to whole "We're so spoiled as fans" argument doesn't hold water for me. The fact is, the money is going to be spent regardless, so it's about managing the cap in order to keep the guys you need and not lose the supplemental parts that could put you over the top ala versatile players like Rich Peverley who became a cap casualty.

If Chiarelli had taken Rask to the mat, what's the worst that would have happened? Some team would have come along and offered him the bananas contract the B's just handed him and the B's would have had the option of taking the compensation or matching. Not like there's anything left to spend on in this free agent crop at this point anyway.

Better hope some of these prospects pan out because they've traded/whiffed on all their recent picks and the window is closing as the salary cap catches up with them.

I'd have taken a more hardline stance with Rask, knowing that you'd always have the option to match with him being restricted. It's just smart business.

 

[WhalerTurnedBruin55]

I don't know whether to say I'm sorry, or congrats on locking him up.

Long term big contracts have not been good for teams locking up their goaltenders in recent years... I hope for your sake this one breaks that trend.

I see Rask not here by the end of his contract, one way or another. Too high, too much of a risk; goalies time and time again prove to be hot/cold when it comes to this.

I guess if he lives up to this contract at least 75% of it, we should be happy...

 

[WhalerTurnedBruin55]

For those that are crying about this deal or questioning it big time, what would your solution have been?

Don't tell me that you just wouldn't have given him that deal and you would have gotten him at a shorter term or shorter cap hit because that just wasn't going to happen.

1. Trade him.

2. Have an offer sheet and don't match. Get some picks that you will eventually complain about as well.


Chia didn't just magically want to give him $7mil and 8 years, but the ball was in Rask's court. The only other option was to move him, which I'm sure those that are crying about this deal would be crying ten times more next year if the Bruins had a sieve of a goalie in the playoffs.

What team was going to pony up and offer more than this?

 

[TaLoN]

I see Rask not here by the end of his contract, one way or another. Too high, too much of a risk; goalies time and time again prove to be hot/cold when it comes to this.

I guess if he lives up to this contract at least 75% of it, we should be happy...

Agreed on it being too much of a risk. In the Salary cap era, it's hard to have so much of the cap tied up in a player who sits on the bench 20-30% of the games.

 

[smithformeragent]

Also, if Chiarelli was going to throw crazy money at the G position, why not bring Khudobin back for a lousy $200K more rather than Chad freaking Johnson? It's great that Rask stayed healthy this year, but what if he goes down next year? I felt like this team always had a chance to win with Khudobin.

 

[Shaun]

Also, if Chiarelli was going to throw crazy money at the G position, why not bring Khudobin back for a lousy $200K more rather than Chad freaking Johnson? It's great that Rask stayed healthy this year, but what if he goes down next year? I felt like this team always had a chance to win with Khudobin.

Ekblad will look good on the blue line.

 

[JOKER 192]

So let's see, Chia overpayed Tyler..... bye Tyler, Chai overpaid Peverly........Bye Pevs , Chia overpaid Kelly now he's shopping him ....TBD, Chia overpaid Rask .......... wow , amazing how one doesn't learn from his mistakes.

 

[smithformeragent]

Chad Johnson the hockey player better wear #85.

 

[smithformeragent]

So let's see, Chia overpayed Tyler..... bye Tyler, Chai overpaid Peverly........Bye Pevs , Chia overpaid Kelly now he's shopping him ....TBD, Chia overpaid Rask .......... wow , amazing how one doesn't learn from his mistakes.

Peter Chiarelli's strategy when signing players

 

[WhalerTurnedBruin55]

Rask better hope he wins at least one cup...

He's gonna get crucified by the media for this otherwise. He's under the microscope from this point on. And rightfully so.

 

[EverettMike]

Okay, anyone up for a lengthy post? If not, keep going. I'll try to take it in numbers to help.

1) Rask was a RFA. How many teams do you think would have beat this deal? Obviously this is pure speculation, but was a 7-year-deal out there at over a 7 million cap hit? I don't know, but it seems very unlikely. So who exactly did the Bruins negotiate against? The answer would seem to be themselves. Rask got the years and the money. What did the Bruins get exactly? This is a total, 100% win for Rask. The Bruins are going to need him to play as a Top 5 goalie in the world for this deal to work out. But that also entails staying healthy for the overwhelming majority of the deal. People forget that sometimes. Cam Ward has been really good....when healthy. How often has that been?

2) He has never played a full season as a number 1 goaltender. I have been harping on this for years, but there is a major, major difference between being the guy for half a season and doing it from Camp to May or June. It isn't Rask's fault they had a stupid lockout (look at that cost certainty we paid four months of the season for!), but I'd feel a lot better about this deal if he had done it even one time.

3) These deals just don't seem to work out. The MAF contract seemed like a good investment at the time. So did the Price deal. Anybody want those?

Goalies are a weird breed. And how often do we see a guy play lights out for a year and then just kinda turn into a JAG (Just Another Guy....in this case, Just Another Goalie). What would Peter Chiarelli offered Rask if he just completed Jose Theodore's 2001-2002 season? 9 million a year?

Rask certainly has all the talent in the world, and he seems to have the competitive drive to be great. But man, goalies are just so hard to predict going forward. For every Patrick Roy and Martin Brodeur their are thousands of Jim Carey's (96 Vezina winner) or for a closer to home touch, Pete Peeters (83 Vezina).

4) Not sure I can fault Chiarelli for not signing him to a longer deal last off-season. From everything we read, he wanted a 3-year deal, it was Rask that wanted the 1-year-prove-myself deal.

It worked. Good for him.

5) I understand the argument that if you gave Rask 4 or 5 years, that his next contract could end up costing you 10 million with the inflated cap. To that I say, "So what?"

My problem is the length. It is the length of the contract that will really come back to bite a team in the ass more than the money. Pay Rask 7.5 for 5 instead. Because, at the end of the 5 years, if he is worth it, you pay it. And if he is not, you re glad you don't have a bad contract for three more years.

I have no problem paying a guy that deserves it. And maybe he deserves that much next year, or for the next few years, but beyond that? We just don't know. So let's find out and go from there. If 5 years from now our biggest problem is that Rask is so awesome that we have to pay him way more, guess what? ****ING A Yeah baby! That means he just rocked for 5 years and we can keep him for more.

But what if this deal doesn't work out? Then what? How long does a bad contract destroy your team now?

What if the Islanders had no way to get rid of DiPietro's deal right now? How long would that anchor be weighing on the Islanders? 24 years? If they just did a normal buyout? Remember, no more burying in the minors too.

6) At the end of this, I think Tuukka Rask is really, really, really good. I trust that he won't get fat and lazy with his big deal in place. Would I like to see him do it for a year or two, start-to-finish first? Obviously. But it didn't seem to work out for him or us that way. So I am glad he will be our goalie. You need a goalie in the NHL. The better your goalie, the more room for error your team has.

This is not a ***** about having Tuuukka, just some reasonable concerns about the deal we gave him.

 

[smithformeragent]

^A-men

especially the first point. Worst case scenario, you let another team offer sheet him and then match. Not a chance they offer him more term/$ than the B's gave here.

I'd never sign a goalie longer than 4 years. I'd walk away every single time because there are enough reclamation projects to be had on a yearly basis that you can easily plug in for pennies on the dollar. Would they be in Rask's tier? No. It's not just about task though, it's about task and who you had to cut ties with in order to keep HIM.

 

[howaryuh]

If there is anything to be taken from 2011 it's that you need a top calibre goalie to win the Cup. The B's have a heavy investment in Rask and I'm good to carry that investment forward. Rask has done nothing to make the B's decide to cut their losses and move on.

 

[Whiskey Sam]

Well said, Mike. It's not about Tuukka, it's about the terms of the deal.

 

[Nose Face Killah]

The backlash of this contract is insane. You'll all be saying this is a good contract when the Bruins win the Cup in a few years and Tuukka gets the Conn Smythe.

 

[smithformeragent]

If there is anything to be taken from 2011 it's that you need a top calibre goalie to win the Cup. The B's have a heavy investment in Rask and I'm good to carry that investment forward. Rask has done nothing to make the B's decide to cut their losses and move on.

Corey Crawford, Anti Niemi, Chris Osgood, MAF.


There's more than one way to skin a cat. The 2011 B's needed Thomas because they weren't as stacked up front as the other contenders. You can also lock up so much money in net that it then handcuffs you in other areas.

I'm legitimately concerned with the Bruins' lack of versatility at forward and Chara's age moving forward. Yes, they've solidified the questions in net, but they have other holes now.

Also, speaking to Mike's point, the ducks won a cup with hiller and locked him up, yet they seemed ready to move on to his heir apparent last season. Goalies are funny.

 

[bruinsfan46]

So let's see, Chia overpayed Tyler..... bye Tyler, Chai overpaid Peverly........Bye Pevs , Chia overpaid Kelly now he's shopping him ....TBD, Chia overpaid Rask .......... wow , amazing how one doesn't learn from his mistakes.

He signed Rich Peverley to an extension in the fall of 2011, at that time he was coming off of a strong Stanley Cup run and 55 and 41 point seasons the two previous seasons. So he's a strong two way player who's a faceoff beast plus he was contributing offensively at the time and you think 3 years/$9.75 million was an overpayment? Chia lets him go to the open market the next spring after the 2011-12 season when he had 42 points in 57 games and with how versatile Peverley is you don't keep him for under $4 million per. Chris Kelly signed in the spring of 2012, strong Cup run in 2011 and 20 goals in 2011-12 without playing on the power play. With his defensive play and faceoff ability he was the perfect third line centre. 3 years/$9 million is not a lofty price to pay for that type of guy, pay any attention at all to the UFA market and you'll understand this. Seguin led the team in scoring as a 19/20 year old and he's not overplayed for the type of player he is, he got traded because his personality doesn't mesh with the Bruins and they were able to get an excellent player on an excellent contract back.
People can't seem to remember how good Peverley and Kelly were before this season, Peverley had been an excellent NHLer since he became a Thrasher. Their offensive games just completely fell off the planet and with a shortened season and Kelly's injury they never got them back. Ryane Clowe just got huge money on the UFA market and he too had no offensive game this season. Chia was a victim of a team with exceptional depth and a salary cap that went way down. This board rages at how bad cheap bottom six options like Daugavins and Bourque are but then bashes Chia for paying good bottom six players too much.

 

[smithformeragent]

^ It really comes down to drafting. When you click on picks, you're able to replenish the ranks in your pro club with entry level contracts and let some of your veterans walk in free agency.

When you trade your picks at the deadline for guys like Jaromir Jagr and whiff on the Zach Hammils of the world, you have to either overpay for a good player or settle for a plug.

 

[Caper Bruins fan]

Corey Crawford, Anti Niemi, Chris Osgood, MAF.


There's more than one way to skin a cat. The 2011 B's needed Thomas because they weren't as stacked up front as the other contenders. You can also lock up so much money in net that it then handcuffs you in other areas.

I'm legitimately concerned with the Bruins' lack of versatility at forward and Chara's age moving forward. Yes, they've solidified the questions in net, but they have other holes now.

Also, speaking to Mike's point, the ducks won a cup with hiller and locked him up, yet they seemed ready to move on to his heir apparent last season. Goalies are funny.

I would much rather be strong in the goaltending department.Not sure what you mean by holes considering the top 6 is likely stronger now.The bottom 6 needs work but I trust PC.

 

[Bruinator]

My only problem with the deal is this. He got the 1 year deal and they said show us what you can do. He didn't win the Vezina. He wasn't picked as on of the 3 finalists for the Vezina. He didn't win the conn Smyth and he didn't win the cup. What would this contract have looked like if any or all of those things happened??

 

[Artemis]

god this is the most spoiled, out of touch fanbase in all of sports. like wtf

It's really gone beyond hilarious now. I mean really. You just have to laugh.

Bring back Sinden! He knew how to deal with those greedy players! That's what we need!

 

[LavioletteScores]

^A-men

especially the first point. Worst case scenario, you let another team offer sheet him and then match. Not a chance they offer him more term/$ than the B's gave here.

I'd never sign a goalie longer than 4 years. I'd walk away every single time because there are enough reclamation projects to be had on a yearly basis that you can easily plug in for pennies on the dollar. Would they be in Rask's tier? No. It's not just about task though, it's about task and who you had to cut ties with in order to keep HIM.

And if a team offers the same? You've just pissed off your franchise goalie and now there is only Chad Johnson or, *ahem* signing Tim Thomas. That gets you nowhere.

Tuukka didn't just luck into the Stanley Cup Finals, he was the single most important component. And he just got paid requisite to his performance.

People, we can't predict the unknown. Future performance is just that, in the future and, although predictable, still unknowable. All I know is, I am going to enjoy watching a team, regardless of how much it has paid its FRANCHISE goalie, that will compete for years to come, even if Rask's contract doesn't come full circle.

Enjoy what we have here right now. It could be a lot worse.

 

[EverettMike]

It's really gone beyond hilarious now. I mean really. You just have to laugh.

Bring back Sinden! He knew how to deal with those greedy players! That's what we need!

Are either of you even reading the numerous, rational concerns over this deal?

Or are you just both fighting strawmen?

 

[Artemis]

My only problem with the deal is this. He got the 1 year deal and they said show us what you can do. He didn't win the Vezina. He wasn't picked as on of the 3 finalists for the Vezina. He didn't win the conn Smyth and he didn't win the cup. What would this contract have looked like if any or all of those things happened??

Are you kidding?

He should have been a Vezina candidate. That he wasn't was an injustice. He was outstanding in the playoffs, and was most certainly in the running for the Conn Smythe; a healthy Bergeron and a couple of better bounces and it could have been his.

A trophy may look great on the mantlepiece, but a player isn't getting a contract based on whether he wins one. A contract is based on a body of work.