Confirmed with Link: Rask signed
- Thread starter Fire Sweeney
- Start date
Dont know if its in here but I cant read all 500 posts. Here's a report on the deal breakdown. At least Chia left himself some wiggle room after year 4.
http://bostonherald.com/sports/bruins_nhl/boston_bruins/2013/07/bruins_save_tuukka_rask_for_56m
Following a season in which Rask answered most any question the B’s may have had about his ability to be a true No. 1 goalie, the team officially signed him to an eight-year, $56 million contract extension that will carry a salary cap hit of $7 million per season. Rask’s actual salary fluctuates from $6 million at the start to as high as $8 million before tapering back down in the deal’s later years. He has a full no trade/no movement clause for the first four years and then it becomes a modified clause.
http://bostonherald.com/sports/bruins_nhl/boston_bruins/2013/07/bruins_save_tuukka_rask_for_56m
Following a season in which Rask answered most any question the B’s may have had about his ability to be a true No. 1 goalie, the team officially signed him to an eight-year, $56 million contract extension that will carry a salary cap hit of $7 million per season. Rask’s actual salary fluctuates from $6 million at the start to as high as $8 million before tapering back down in the deal’s later years. He has a full no trade/no movement clause for the first four years and then it becomes a modified clause.
PatriceBergeronFan
Registered User
ranold26
Tuukka likes the post...
- May 28, 2003
- 21,540
- 7,070
I'm getting a kick out the people using the penny pinching ways of the past excuse, in somehow validating their view of that it is okay to overpay now etc.
You can't compare the two.
There was no league cap back then, only Jacobs' own personal budget cap, where Harry would tighten the purse strings and thus lead us to a disadvantage amongst the other 16-20 clubs etc. There was valid reason for the disdain many had towards Jacobs and Bruins mgmt etc.
Today, all the clubs have the same maximum spending possibility. If you spend, you need to be efficient. As we've seen since '04, inefficiency absolutely kills clubs, leading to turnover, regrettable deals and trades/buyouts that need to occur based on financials, rather than roster based etc.
So can we stop comparing apples with oranges please.
You can't compare the two.
There was no league cap back then, only Jacobs' own personal budget cap, where Harry would tighten the purse strings and thus lead us to a disadvantage amongst the other 16-20 clubs etc. There was valid reason for the disdain many had towards Jacobs and Bruins mgmt etc.
Today, all the clubs have the same maximum spending possibility. If you spend, you need to be efficient. As we've seen since '04, inefficiency absolutely kills clubs, leading to turnover, regrettable deals and trades/buyouts that need to occur based on financials, rather than roster based etc.
So can we stop comparing apples with oranges please.
hoss75
Registered User
Artemis
Took the red pill
Thanks for the link, that was informative. I wonder if the press availability (conference?) will be broadcast today - is it at 3 p.m., or am I misremembering?
Just checked, conference call at 3 p.m.
Last edited:
redsox7327
Registered User
- Sep 10, 2011
- 1,257
- 0
That's horrible! No movement clause for 4 years is not good. And, as a goalie, when submitting teams he would accept a trade to, he could just list every team that already has a franchise goalie if he doesn't want to get traded.
Granted, though, if a team truly wants to move someone, the player usually obliges, but the situation will definitely be in Rask's hands.
LouJersey
Registered User
Few things...1. Chia has redeemed himself with me on this deal with the NMC.... 2. Goalies with long term deals seem to be disasters in the making, going by history, but with Subban in the wings, if Tuuk falters I have faith in four years Chia will do the right thing.
Its Alright Ma
Registered User
- Jul 19, 2010
- 528
- 0
In four years if Tuuk hasnt played well he'll be completely untradeable
Rask has to keep playing at a high level, if he doesnt we're screwed. I feel confident in his ability but this deal is a huge risk
Greek_physique
Caron - Legit SNIPER
So would everyone else have preferred to just let the guy walk? While it's a huge risk (I think any deal nowadays is with the way the salary cap is structured) but I for one am confident in Tuukka.
Time will tell, but we're set in net for a very long time and this contract is market value.
Time will tell, but we're set in net for a very long time and this contract is market value.
RussellmaniaKW
Registered User
- Sep 15, 2004
- 19,699
- 21,808
so we're going from worshipping this guy during the playoffs to thinking he might play so poorly over the course of 4 years that he'll be untradeable?
RussellmaniaKW
Registered User
- Sep 15, 2004
- 19,699
- 21,808
LSCII
Cup driven
You can still like the guy but hate the terms of the contract. Besides, goalies are an odd bunch. Very few maintain a high level of play for 8 years.
Number8
Registered User
- Oct 31, 2007
- 18,019
- 17,055
Wish it were a bit less, but Tuukka's definitely shown he has the goods.
Many many years of Rob Tallas, John Grahame, John Casey, Blaine Lacher, Kay Whitmore, M MF Fernandez, etc., makes me realize how utterly spoiled we've been in Boston for the past 8 years.
Think Paul Holmgren's been trying to find that kind of goalkeeping talent over the past several years?
Many many years of Rob Tallas, John Grahame, John Casey, Blaine Lacher, Kay Whitmore, M MF Fernandez, etc., makes me realize how utterly spoiled we've been in Boston for the past 8 years.
Think Paul Holmgren's been trying to find that kind of goalkeeping talent over the past several years?
PatriceBergeronFan
Registered User
Exactly.
And do the people saying "if you don't pay him, he walks for nothing"... think that's really true? Aside from the 4 1st round picks we'd get....
If Chiarelli said: "half the years or 6 million or nothing" etc, would Rask really leave a top 5 team in the league for that? He throws tantrums over individual goals and losses, how would he survive mentally on a losing team like Edmonton or Calgary?
Artemis
Took the red pill
patty59
***************
Yes, if you offered him less than half of what he actually got, he would leave. Wouldn't you?
- Feb 3, 2009
- 18,682
- 5,041
No kidding. What do people think, that he's scared to leave? Can you imagine another team like Philly or TML scooping him up? Not worth the risk.
PatriceBergeronFan
Registered User
Danton Heineken
Howard Potts
If Rask continues this level of play, and Subban develops the way he's expected to, after that 4 years Rask will be worth a 1st round pick and a top young roster player.
No way Rask plays out all of this contract.
No way Rask plays out all of this contract.
patty59
***************
Not buying it. I doubt anyone on this planet would take 32M less. He obviously wouldn't have signed that deal anyways based on what he got.
If you hold a hard line and he walks RFA, yes, we get picks. But the we have Chad Johnson as our starter. Chad ****ing Johnson, do you not see how dumb that would be?
Greek_physique
Caron - Legit SNIPER
IMO, i'd be more worried if Rask was from North America.
Seems like the new wave of elite goalies all come from Europe: Lundqvist, Rask, Rinne, Bobrovsky, Niemi etc.
I don't see any of the above faultering going forward.
Seems like the new wave of elite goalies all come from Europe: Lundqvist, Rask, Rinne, Bobrovsky, Niemi etc.
I don't see any of the above faultering going forward.
Artemis
Took the red pill
Why half the years? Wouldn't you say locking up a top goalie for his prime (UFA) years is a good thing?
At any rate, Rask has paid his dues and took a very cap-friendly deal last season. It seems that you're advocating that Chiarelli should, in return, treat him with comtempt. Then we'd have people complaining that Bruins players don't want to re-sign, as they did in Sinden's day.
Here's Rask's contract history, if anyone's interested:
http://www.capgeek.com/player/237
If goalies are as risky as everyone here says, then why the hell would he take 4 years when he could flame out in those 4 years and never see big money again? The smart move is to demand max term and provide security for himself and his family. He doesn't owe the Bruins a less risky contract just to appease some of their fans.
Same with Bergeron. This is a guy who a concussion could end his career, why should he settle for say 3 years just because it'd be less risky for the Bruins? He shouldn't, he should do what's best for him and his family and that's maximum term and security.
