Quote:
Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary
agreed.
its a poor contract in terms of the player brings to the ice vs how much compensation he is getting.
by some people's logic, we could have paid DE 5 million per year, and that would not be considered a "bad contract" because we have cap space?
Meanwhile, people talk about the Byron deal being shrewd because we saved some money in not giving him a qualifying offer? Why? If you are under the cap floor, then people could have paid Byron whatever was awarded in arbitration, rather than risking a valuable asset (other people's assessment), walk away for nothing?
If Edmonton made this signing, I am pretty sure folks here wouldn't be justifying it with the same vigor and passion
|
There is a difference between 'bad' and 'worst'.
I have not seen a single person argue that he isn't overpaid - even Treliving acknowledged that.
<note: here's where logic comes in to play...>
Even though he is overpaid, it is NOT the worst contract, simply because it will never be a harm or burden to the Flames.
Any contract that causes cap issues, results in other players not being signed or having to be traded, or becomes a buy-out, would by definition be a worse contract than this one.
No one said it wasn't overpayment, just that it isn't that big of a deal.
Capiche?