KrejciMVP
Registered User
7 million a year is really nothing when you think about it. Comparing it to other sports salaries put things is real perspective. The cap will go up eventually.
Fair questions. Good ones. I would have let him play on a one year deal or tried to make rask accept a 6 year deal and a AAV of 6 million. If worst comes to worst, you let other teams offsheet him and collect the four first round picks. No player is beyond being traded. Rask is a good goalie but not a great one. We can replace him. Don't be surprised if rask is traded at one point to make room for subban. One of subban or rask is getting traded unless one of them doesn't mind being a backup for a long time.
Back to my point, I wouldn't have given rask a 8 year deal. What's the point of negotiating if you just going to crave in. I'm beginning to wonder if rask asked for a 10 year deal and chia settled for 8. If not chia just got schooled. I wouldn't take him to arbitration, but i would have let him play on a one year deal.
Guys rask can be replaced. We are not talking about a Goat goal tender here.
I'm on your side on this argument, Artemis... But your candor is grating to me as well. Mike's concerns are valid and what he's saying is not inflammatory. I'm not sure why you feel the need to treat those not entirely on board with such empty disdain.
I'll restate my opinion that Rask's deal is market value. We may not appreciate what market value is, but it is not as though Chiarelli can reset it when it is time for HIM to re-sign HIS players.
7 million a year is really nothing when you think about it. Comparing it to other sports salaries put things is real perspective. The cap will go up eventually.
Love the term.
Hate the cap hit.
Chiarelli always seems to overpay "his boys". We never seem to get the "home town discount".
Elated he's back though, he's elite. I think Pete could have ground him down a bit.
It's already been noted, but Bergeron, Chara and Seidenberg signed for below market value on their last contracts, and Rask actually did as well, last year. Brickley also noted on NESN last night that Chiarelli offered Rask a long-term deal last year but it was Rask who wanted the one-year contract.
Probably cuz rask knew if he played well he would score 56 mil. It was a tiny risk huge reward
Probably cuz rask knew if he played well he would score 56 mil. It was a tiny risk huge reward
All the people complaining about our horrible goaltending over the years are now complaining that we've signed a good goaltender for a long-term deal. Some people are never happy.
To me, that was a 50/50 proposition for Rask. Could have been injuried and then... Fans need to ask themselves how many business man would be willing to invest in a project with a 50% chances of failure...
Dont kid yourself, he knew he had the Bruins by the short hairs either way.
What was the other option here? Tade him and sign Bryz?
Force him to take less money?
Let him go sign as a RFA first, see what another team signs him for, then weigh your options.
I love Rask, way more then TT... but this has just handcuffed us with the cap for at least 2-3 season.
If he signed as a RFA for 7 mil, we would get 4 first round picks! I would take that in a second.
Chia should not have like Khoby go over 200k????? Signed Johnson at 600k but would not give Khoby 800k????? WTF!!!
and often what separates good from great businessmen is the great one`s are willing to take the risks
That is a plausible scenario. And if Rask plays well he should bring a nice return.
Four first round picks and who stopping the puck between the pipes???? Sorry, that would be a disaster
With Rask making $$$$ for the next 8 years what will happen with our Goalie prospects.
Trade them all away for picks ? Develop them, then trade them away with the hope they do not amount to much ? (after this joke of a contract it would be funny to see one of them turn into a stud in a few years)
Im sure Subbans camp will ask out and who could blame him.
8 years