Quote:
Originally Posted by GranteedEV
Go after a legitimate top line forward. Even if you have to overpay for an Okposo, you're getting an impact player. Or swing a trade or offersheet for a Toffoli-type on a team strapped against the cap. There are always solutions. And sometimes they won't bring the exact mix in one package that you're getting in UFA, but that doesn't mean you can't get a similar mix with multiple players. Would a Ferland-Bennett-Palmieri line really be lacking anything? No Palmieri is nothing like Brouwer as a player but that doesn't mean the line can't function similarily.
My point is that your UFA contracts should be your core players and your depth players, and everything in the middle is necessarily your RFA contracts. You have flexibility for one or two middling UFAs (A #4D and a forward) but not so many (Stajan, Frolik, Brouwer, and whomever replaces Engelland/Wideman's cap hit as the long term #4D spot next off-season) that your salary structure lacks the flexibility to jump into the elite tier by adding a core piece.
This post:
and a few others like it sprinked throughout the thread are certainly missing that no one is trashing the player in isolation. Of course anyone negative on the contract has to be an idiot who's never seen the guy play and must have "bad hockey knowledge" who "only relies on charts" though, right? Because that's the picture being painted by some - if you're not excited about paying a notable portion of the salary cap for a guy with #WARRIORINTANGIBLES you must be ignorant of who he is and what he brings.
|
That's a good plan to avoid those cap issues you are so afraid Brouwer creates.