Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteMoss
They were all questioned at the time. Its not some wild revisionist history to say the Engelland/Raymond contracts didn't seem odd at the time.
Instead of signing Mason Raymond for three years, you could have signed random veteran X (say Daniel Winnick) for 1 year and then dealt him and got a draft pick or kept him for the playoff run, then picked up random veteran Y for 1 year and then traded him this year for a draft pick.
|
Raymond I would agree with. The discussion was Hiller and Engelland though and I don't remember a huge dispute about term with them. A team with no goaltender other than Ramo who was a big question mark at the time needed someone else. Hiller was one of the best options available and maybe 2 years is what it took to get it done. I have no issue with that signing. Engelland people didn't like the cap hit but cap space was our luxury then. I think the term was needed to get the deal done as well. Sometimes its the price you pay to address areas of need. One of those damned if you do damned if you don't type situations. You don't make those moves people are complaining about why we have no veteran goalie or why we have no toughness. I don't see those contracts as major hinderances. I would agree though that Raymond was a poor signing and likely we could have found an option with less term. At the same time Raymond was coming off a 19 goal 45pts season and the Flames were just gutted of their vets. Also have to consider Treliving just arrived in town. He had barely any time to assess the team.