[Signing] Bruins sign Tuukka Rask. 8 Years.. $7mil Per - Page 3 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

CSharp · 07-10-2013, 04:27 PM

Looks like another team buyout in 2 to 3 years. FFS, when are teams gonna learn that these ridiculous contracts don't work? The Bruins can basically make any goalie look good with the huge D's and the big huge depth forwards that they have. The only reason why they didn't win it this time around was maybe they were a bit more banged up than their last cup run.

sa226 · 07-10-2013, 04:28 PM

I wonder if these types of deals are the new stupidity in this CBA.

"We will give you close to max/max because you are kinda good and stuff and we will cross our fingers and hope it is a bargain in 8 years"

Oling_Roachinen · 07-10-2013, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rubecube

Bruins are nearly 1.4M over the cap now with 13 forwards, 7 defencemen, and 2 goalies. They're screwed if they get into injury trouble.

EDIT: I think that's also taking Savard's LTIR relief into account.

Not quite. They are over the cap if bonuses are met but they can still spend 2.65M and be cap compliant really once Savard is placed on LTIR.

What will happen is most of the bonuses they have this year will count towards next year. A risky decision, signing Iginla to "6M" but possibly only having 2M count this year and 4M count next.

Buff · 07-10-2013, 04:30 PM

Apparently Luongo didn't call Rask to warn him about high priced long term contracts. Doesn't anybody pump anybody else's tires anymore?

RedMileDJ · 07-10-2013, 04:32 PM

Luongo 2.0 imo.

Too long. Too much. It won't end well.

Bertuzzied · 07-10-2013, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Element55

Luongo 2.0 imo.

Too long. Too much. It won't end well.

hahaha Seriously??? Sure the guy got an insane payday but he doesn't need to be disrespected like that!

TahitiTreat · 07-10-2013, 04:44 PM

$7M for a goalie is insaneo. Traditionally, goalie position is contractually undervalued (if there is even such a thing) compared to forwards and defencemen. I have no doubt this deal will bite them in the @$$.

And don't get me wrong, he had a good season last year, but he by no means stole games in the playoffs like Kipper did in '04.

RedMileDJ · 07-10-2013, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

hahaha Seriously??? Sure the guy got an insane payday but he doesn't need to be disrespected like that!

It's not disrespecting. The contract term and the amount just looks and feels very "Luongo-ish."

Rask, at this point in his career, has a good head on his shoulders. His confidence and play reminds me of Kipper. Doesn't seem to let the little things get to him, like Roberto.

Murph · 07-10-2013, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moon

That's a lot of money/term for any goalie and for me Rask isn't top 5.

It seems that is the price you have to give to keep the "stars" of your team but based on what we have seen with goalies and big money contracts lately I am not sure I want to be tied to that deal, especially when he didn't look all that much more impressive than Corey Crawford the past SCF.

Before this year I would have agreed, but I think after this year, he's in the conversation for top 5. Among starters, he was 4th in GAA and 3rd in save percentage. Stats aren't everything, but combine that with the fact he back stopped his team to the final and he's top 10 for sure, and in my opinion, top 5.

CSharp · 07-10-2013, 05:09 PM

If Bruins did what Chicago did several years ago and just let their cup winning goalie go, they'd still be the one to beat in the playoffs regardless of which goalie they had going forward. If the Bruins can make a 37 year-old goalie look good in Tim Thomas and then come up with Rask a couple of years later, they should've just rolled the dice and said, "Next!".

PlayfulGenius · 07-10-2013, 05:14 PM

I have no issue with the term...Rask is young and a top G in the league...in fact, he'd be my first choice at G if I were building a team from scratch (considering age, of course)

...but man, I find it hard to believe its necessary to pay him $7mil per year...yikes.

Is he the highest paid G??

sun · 07-10-2013, 05:29 PM

Awful deal. Rask is a great goalie, but probably won't play well enough to be worth that kind of cheddar in at least four of the eight years.

PeteLFan · 07-10-2013, 05:32 PM

Awful contract.

Milt Schmidt · 07-10-2013, 05:38 PM

Good to see Rask is gonna be around for awhile, maybe a bit too much money but I think he'll keep earning it.

Milt

Locke · 07-10-2013, 05:45 PM

Terrible deal.

Its good to know that the GMs havent learned a damn thing.

jesters91 · 07-10-2013, 05:47 PM

7 X 8 = trouble for a goalie.
Count me in the 5 years and 6 million per camp.

$ven27 · 07-10-2013, 05:48 PM

Horrible contract. Should have just gave him like 8M for 3 years instead of 8, ridiculous.

GGG · 07-10-2013, 09:14 PM

Kipper was paid 5.8 mil in a 45 mil cap world. 7 mil in a 63 mil cap world is less.

Its weird that high end salaries havent tracked as the cap has gone up. The mid level deals keep getting higher.

So if Boston believes that Raask is the best goalie in the league (i woud disagree) then this is a good deal.

T@T · 07-10-2013, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rubecube

Well that's just terrible. If Iggy hits all of his bonuses the Bruins could end up in cap hell.

Bonuses are counted, there OK to start the season because Savards $4m will go off.

GGG · 07-10-2013, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T@T

Bonuses are counted, there OK to start the season because Savards $4m will go off.

There is a bonus cushion which bonuses go into and allow you exceed the cap by the amount of the bonus cushion. If the bonuses are achieved and you do not have real cap room for them you are given a cap penalty the following season. Bonuses also do not count towards the floor.