Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe
Franchises don't WANT to sign players. It is a waste to do so.
So, if we had signed Erixon immediately to a standard 3 year ELC after his draft, what would happen?
The last 2 years would be eaten up in Sweden. We would then have only 1 year left of his ELC. It doesn't make any organizational sense to sign European players to an ELC if they are not joining your club or AHL farm team. You maintain rights without costing $$, and even more importantly, not wasting the cheap years. It isn't a fault of Sutter's - if he had signed him, and Erixon went to Sweden, then we would be really mad.
|
If you sign him and have him under contract, then you have a lot more leverage than you do hours before the deadline. Kid doesn't want to be here, fine, we will trade you but you don't have a gun to your head during trade negotiations.
Maybe Sutter screwed up as well by not bringing him over last season. Does Erixon = Babchuk and/orWhite? While I am against guaranteeing rookies spots on the roster, believe he should have been over here and given a long look instead of being back in Sweden. If he is able to make the team, then you sign him. If not, send him back.
Sutter handles the situation differently, maybe we're not having this discussion.