Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashasx
This argument doesn't make any sense.
I never said Ryan Reaves holds back a team from being good. I mean, he can if we sign him for 3+ years for $2 million+, but I'm not insinuating that Reaves brings an entire team down. That shouldn't be the basis for whether or not a player is a worthwhile acquisition for a team.
Vegas was good before they added Reaves, and they were good after. There are some bad players on some really good teams in this league. Does that mean we should go out and acquire them? Because they have been on good teams in the past?
This is exactly what I'm talking about. No players are overpaid more than role players on teams that go deep into the playoffs. You can bet it will be even less lucrative if that player is a 31 year old enforcer.
|
Hypothetically, the Flames could be good without Reaves, and they could also be good with Reaves. So I don't see the point in getting upset about the Flames potentially signing the guy.
I certainly don't want to see the Flames pay a ridiculous amount for an 8 minute per night 4th liner, but I also don't know what kind of effect having a guy like this in your line up has on the rest of the team. Maybe the money you pay isn't worth it for the 8 minutes per night of possession black hole and minimal offensive output, but maybe you make that money back by his presence having a positive effect on the rest of your line up? I don't know, I've never spent any time in an NHL locker room. One thing is for sure though, if they do sign him and he's on our team, he won't be blowing up one of our top defensemen and putting them out for an extended period of time with a concussion.