Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
You have to buy goalies time to see if they're going to be the goalie of the future. But yeah I agree he's far from a sure thing.
I guess his mental make up and resume have me thinking he's a better bet than most.
But imagine signing a then 30+ year old Babrovsky to a six year deal paying him $8M per season, and then have him falter and be untradable and suddenly you have one of Gillies or Parsons demanding the net and you're stuck?
|
How is this any different than signing, say, James Neal to the deal he just got? If he falters then the Flames are kind of screwed for a top line winger once again and have another Troy Brouwer situation on their hands. A guaranteed contract structure like the NHL demands that you sometimes have to take risks in order to put yourself over the top and improve your team. Bob is consistently one of the best in the league and is still young enough that you're not necessarily worried about a substantial drop-off in production in his early 30s.
Having said that, I have no idea if a young starter becomes available and what the cost of that might be. Other teams have made these kinds of deals, why does it seem like the Flames are consistently left the bridesmaid?
All I know is that chaining these short-term stop gaps together has consistently provided us horrible to average results, and in the case of Elliott cost the Flames a pick that became a top-flight prospect in Kyrou. So the risk is still real but the reward has been uninspiring to say the least. Why not shoot for the fences rather than hope and pray this unproven prospect becomes the solution with no plan B in place?