Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolven
To be fair, players that are considered "warts" are not given "above league minimum" contracts for extended lengths of time. 3+ years on his contract implies that the Blackhawks viewed him as a part of the long term plan over some league minimum plug that they are now going to have to employ.
As much as I would rather we had kept the pick... Bollig looks like a better player than our typical fighter. At least I hope he proves to be because otherwise we could have kept the pick and signed some meathead on July 1st.
|
I think we could probably scour every roster in the league and find players on every team that are below average or less than adequate, and still received multi-year deals for greater than the league average. It's why players go on waivers, get buried or get bought out. Only time will tell if Bollig is a waste of an asset, but I wouldn't take his current deal as an indication of anything. After all, Chicago did turn around and trade him.
I know that fans aren't always the best judges, but I looked at a Chicago forum and read threads from when they re-signed him and before the trade yesterday, and it sounds like a lot of people thought he was a waste of money. He didn't sound like a fan favourite by any means anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
Based on the above we can say that there is a 6% chance we would have drafted a player significantly better than Bolig, an 18% chance of drafting someone similar to Bolig and a 76% chance of drafting someone worse.
|
And now instead of a 6% chance of getting something better than Bollig, we have a 0% chance. Not a big deal I guess, but I would rather shoot for the stars than just assume we'd botch the pick. I don't believe finding a player like Bollig would be so hard that we couldn't have rolled the dice with the pick yesterday.
I understand that I am making it sound like a bigger deal than it really is though, so I will stop beating this horse and just hope for the best. Maybe he'll win me over.