I would in a heart beat. Richards is still a good player, just overpaid. You get him without giving up assets, and cap constraints shouldn't be a problem for the Flames the next few years. Come trade deadline, you flip Richards to a contender for picks and prospects, and it's win-win. I see no downside in signing him for 3 years at $3M per. Is it realistic that he would sign something like that though? Probably not, and hence why I wouldn't want Feaster targeting him as a free agent. Knowing our luck, it'll be something like $4M for 6 years or something.
Can anyone explain why he would choose Calgary over more competitive teams in the East given similar contract offers? Fact is the only way he would come to Calgary is if they offer the most money and as we saw a few years back that may not be enough. Time to move forward and when you are building a new foundation the last thing you want is veteran players that are only here for the money. Would rather spend that money on a player that genuinely wants to wear the Flames colors.
The Following User Says Thank You to Erick Estrada For This Useful Post:
If we don't I'm sure Ron MacLean will force CBC to pay him that much to become an analyst. They can go ahead and replace Don Cherry for him. Change it to Lobster's Corner with Brad Richards (okay that was pretty bad).
Seriously though, I don't think he fits the mold of this team going forward, so I doubt he'd sign here (nor do we really want him to). But I think some of his fall in production is because Tortorella stifles the production of star players (the same goes for Rick Nash). Their powerplay is also awful, which is something that should be much better.
Now while I would put Richards and Nash in the same boat as two of the most overrated players in the league, both of them are still first line players and easily worth 3 million. Richards was a 91 point player only 3 years ago, 77 the year after, and 66 for his first year in New York; those are numbers that prove he's still worth maybe even 5 mill.
The only real way I'd want the Flames to sign him though would be to offer him a short term contract so they can deal him at the deadline for assets. Heck give him 6 million for one season; someone will still trade decent assets at the deadline for him. He has shown to be a viable playoff performer (even if it was almost a decade ago); and someone will surely overpay for him come the trade deadline.
Ask me this last year I would have said absolutely. But the direction has changed and the center group won't be getting any older than Stajan. So no, not any more.
Is Richards a Hall of Fame caliber player? 816 points at the age of 33, so he might even finish off with 1200; Conn Smythe, Stanley Cup, and a few other accolades.
The numbers say yes, but not sure his play really does.
"Post Apex" players should not be making the first line.
This is true (sort of), but what's your point? You simply have highlighted why the Flames are not a good team at the moment, a lack of pre-apex players able to play in the top 6.
Can anyone explain why he would choose Calgary over more competitive teams in the East given similar contract offers? Fact is the only way he would come to Calgary is if they offer the most money and as we saw a few years back that may not be enough. Time to move forward and when you are building a new foundation the last thing you want is veteran players that are only here for the money. Would rather spend that money on a player that genuinely wants to wear the Flames colors.
Agreed. But this thread simply asked, would you pay $3M for said player. Of course it's debatable if he'd sign here for that, but that's not really what the discussion is about. No one is suggesting we throw a dump truck of money at the guy.
Is Richards a Hall of Fame caliber player? 816 points at the age of 33, so he might even finish off with 1200; Conn Smythe, Stanley Cup, and a few other accolades.
The numbers say yes, but not sure his play really does.
No. Unfortunately the NHL HOF is a little tarnished because they have let in players in the past that aren't HOF worthy so it's possible but I never considered him a dominant player. He had a good run in 2004 but he's never been one of those players that wows you. Nash is another one that shouldn't get mentioned in the same sentance as the HOF in fact has even less credentials and is IMO more overrated than even Richards.
Funny I'm listening to the Fan Toronto and Doug MacLean is basically calling Tortorella a terrbile coach because Nash and Richards are struggling despite the fact that Richards played his best hockey under Tortorella in 2004. Remember Nash is the one think MacLean clings to as a positive in his disasterous tenure as GM of the Jackets.
2 years at anything less than 5M sounds good. Pretty much no risk in our cap situation. Obviously he isn't doing well under the Rangers system but he didn't just lose his talent overnight. A combination of that system and the lifetime contract seems to have hurt his game. A change of scenery, short contract and a different system could bring him back to life. He would instantly be our best centre.
He just collected $24 million the last 2 years and would get another $24 if bought out, if he signs anywhere it would be for pride and to prove himself. I wouldn't think he would sign for more than 1 year and probably fairly cheap.
1) Brad Richards has had ONE bad half season... where he was 19th in scoring among centres. Yes, he's having a crappy playoffs, but it's not like someone has cut his legs off. He's a #1C going through a bad patch. I expect that (darn near) EVERY team in the NHL would take Brad Richards on a $3m x 3 year contract. Which means that one of them is going to have to pay a whole lot more (and probably for longer). And that's not even including the fact that he would be the best UFA centre on the market this year.
2) The whole pre/post-apex thing is not new revealed gospel. Its not like there can never be exceptions, no matter how beneficial. Feaster just signed Joey MacDonald for crying out loud. It's a general direction, not a law.
3) If you want a "proper rebuild", and don't want Feaster to "rush the rebuild", then why in god's name do you want him to ditch all the vets and throw the kids to the Wolves? Trying to play the prospects and young players over their heads is the definition of rushing the rebuild. Developing players takes TIME, sheltered minutes, and coaching. Playing rookies in situations that they're not ready for is a great way to ruin prospects. Edmonton has ruined far better prospects than the Flames even have, by doing the same thing.
__________________
I am a lunatic whose world revolves around hockey and Oilers hate.
Last edited by BACKCHECK!!!; 05-23-2013 at 12:42 PM.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to BACKCHECK!!! For This Useful Post:
At best he plays well enough to take the team from 25-30 range and into the 25-20 range and we end up with a worse pick but slightly more wins.
I would prefer the team focus on players that will help the team regain contender status than short term guys that may slightly increase the talent on the team but doing nothing to improve the chances of the team winning a Cup.
I wouldn't be opposed to this, as long as Stajan isn't also on our 2013/14 roster. I'd be pretty frustrated if the Flames continued to bury our 18-25 year old centers behind 30+ year old centers on the depth chart despite going into rebuild mode.
The Following User Says Thank You to Roof-Daddy For This Useful Post:
God no, I hope the Rangers keep him. They signed him (and many others) to those ridiculous contracts and I hope they are forced to keep him. No only will I never forgive him for 2004, but he is one of those players that lockout was built around (star players looking out for their own well being) and after he signs that massive contract, he fails to live up to it. Screw him. I hope he is forced to wallow in NY for the rest of his playing days. Just because we are low on center depth doesn't mean Feaster should go out and get a declining/worsening player who can't even cut it with good talent like NY has.
I've always thought Richards was overrated, even after his Conn Smyth season. I can think of 3 other players who deserved it more then he did.
I also hate his beaver bucktoothed face. That alone is reason to stay away.
The Following User Says Thank You to Huntingwhale For This Useful Post:
Time changes everything. Remember the time when teams would be clamouring over the likes of Brad Richards, Gomez, Drury and Briere? Now they can't wait to get rid of them.
