[Rumour] Rangers considering Richards buyout - Page 4 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Dagger · 04-10-2013, 02:35 PM

Richards and Iginla may have had incredible chemistry, but Richards managed 66 points(40 odd apples) next to Marian Gaborik who is one of the most dynamic goal scorers in the game. I don't think he does much better than that(Iginla managed 32 with Tanguay, I'd say he'd be like a 40 goal guy with Richards at best). Can you honestly say that last year's team plus Richards(minus Jokinen who was a 60 point guy for us - I know not the greatest with Iggy) is all of a sudden a cup contender? No.

So is a guy who'd be making 7.1 million for the next 9 years(our offer was 64 for 9) good value when he's the wrong side of 30 and s ~70 point player in his first year? No.

It's a bad contract, it was only ever going to be good for the first 5 years at best and people want to say we can't judge Feaster for this? We dodged a bullet, and it's absolutely a blemish on his already stained resume.

Phanuthier · 04-10-2013, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tinordi

That was my rebuttal to Captain who said nobody could have predicted that and that going after Richards was the right move.

Read the forum back at that time, many of people were saying it was a fool's errand and wouldn't be a good move. Turned out those people were right.

Yup, MANY people thought it was flat out stupid; that it would be good for 2-3 years (turns out it was only 1), 4 of those years would be stinkers and the last few were the back diving part.

blankall · 04-10-2013, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurningSteel

It doesnt matter that they didnt get him they almost did and then we would have been in this terrible situation. First ROR and then this, Fire Feaster!!!!!

Every team in the league with the need for a centre and the the budget was after Richards. Richards got what the market dictated.

Virtually every team in the league made a pitch at Richards:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/6...this-offseason

Jacks · 04-10-2013, 02:44 PM

I wouldn't mind trading for Richards if NY would eat half the salary and cap hit. He isn't likely to play the last 3 years of his contract since they are all 1M pay years. That would leave him with 4 more years left and a (50%) cap hit of 3.333M per year. He would have to agree to waive his NMC in 2017 so that if he wants to keep playing he could be traded to a cap floor team if needed. Unlikely that it would work out since I doubt Richards would be co-operative about it since he would almost certainly prefer the payout.

bluloc · 04-10-2013, 02:46 PM

Just because he's not producing in New York doesnt mean he wouldn't have produced playing in Calgary. Just another player who went to the big apple who couldnt live up to their expectations. I bet Richards would have played well if he came to Calgary and played with Iginla and Tanguay.

StrykerSteve · 04-10-2013, 02:46 PM

Sign him for 1M per season for 3 years. I'd be cool with that.

Erick Estrada · 04-10-2013, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blankall

Every team in the league with the need for a centre and the the budget was after Richards. Richards got what the market dictated.

Virtually every team in the league made a pitch at Richards:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/6...this-offseason

What team wouldnt want him at the right price? In the end only two teams were willing to hand him the deal he received. It appears the rest of the market felt the price was too steep. This contract is no different than the Bryzgalov one in that it was simply far too much money and term for a good but not great player.

blankall · 04-10-2013, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

What team wouldnt want him at the right price? In the end only two teams were willing to hand him the deal he received. It appears the rest of the market felt the price was too steep. This contract is no different than the Bryzgalov one in that it was simply far too much money and term for a good but not great player.

1) You don't know that. It sounds like Richards was set on NYR and was willing to take a slight discount to go there.

2) I don't any of the other serious offers were far off what he ended up with. At most they'd be a million less a season or 2-3 years less. Either way, they'd all be relatively long term contracts, that would be in similar in nature to what Richards got.

To criticize Feaster for taking a shot on Richards is ridiculous. Every GM who could did the same thing. All the analysts said he was worth it too. Richards was universally described as one of the hottest commodities to ever reach free agency. With his style of game, he was predicted to play at top form for many years to come. It didn't happen that way. No one can predict the future.

Erick Estrada · 04-10-2013, 03:03 PM

What don't I know? It was well known what teams were seriously interested and at the end it dwindled down to two or three teams that were willing to give him that contract. I always felt it was a bad idea to try and outbid for a player that truly wanted to be on the east coast. That and I never thought he was that great in the first place. It's really no surprise that just two years into the deal we are discussing this. It was a bad deal the day it was announced and its a bad deal today.

Phanuthier · 04-10-2013, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blankall

1) You don't know that. It sounds like Richards was set on NYR and was willing to take a slight discount to go there.

2) I don't any of the other serious offers were far off what he ended up with. At most they'd be a million less a season or 2-3 years less. Either way, they'd all be relatively long term contracts, that would be in similar in nature to what Richards got.

To criticize Feaster for taking a shot on Richards is ridiculous. Every GM who could did the same thing. All the analysts said he was worth it too. Richards was universally described as one of the hottest commodities to ever reach free agency. With his style of game, he was predicted to play at top form for many years to come. It didn't happen that way. No one can predict the future.

A lot of GM's backed off because the bidding was getting ridiculously high. And while analysts thought he'd get a lot, a lot of people knew some idiot sucker would win the Richards sweepstakes but in a few years would be left holding the bag..... in fact lots of people here thought that.

Rubicant · 04-10-2013, 03:06 PM

As I have said before, if I am glad for one thing from the D. Sutter era, it's that he didn't saddle us with any ridiculous long term contracts.

There are a lot of albatrosses in the league that are going to be around for a very long time, or they are going to cost a lot of money this summer.

Dagger · 04-10-2013, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blankall

1) You don't know that. It sounds like Richards was set on NYR and was willing to take a slight discount to go there.

2) I don't any of the other serious offers were far off what he ended up with. At most they'd be a million less a season or 2-3 years less. Either way, they'd all be relatively long term contracts, that would be in similar in nature to what Richards got.

To criticize Feaster for taking a shot on Richards is ridiculous. Every GM who could did the same thing. All the analysts said he was worth it too. Richards was universally described as one of the hottest commodities to ever reach free agency. With his style of game, he was predicted to play at top form for many years to come. It didn't happen that way. No one can predict the future.

Feaster took "no" as "I want more money" and tried to buy his way to Richards in an already inflated market. No doubt there'd be an NMC in there too, so it's very reasonable to criticize him.

blankall · 04-10-2013, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

A lot of GM's backed off because the bidding was getting ridiculously high. And while analysts thought he'd get a lot, a lot of people knew some idiot sucker would win the Richards sweepstakes but in a few years would be left holding the bag..... in fact lots of people here thought that.

Hence the contracts being front loaded. The vast majority of analysts were not predicting Richards to fall off after 1-2 years.

For all intents and purposes, Richards was given a 6 year contract.

dino7c · 04-10-2013, 03:16 PM

Vinny01 · 04-10-2013, 03:18 PM

Remember Iginla was coming off a 43 goal 86 point season when Feaster took his run at Richards. They played like a totally different team post-Darryl that was due to their weak schedule and the fact Iggy-Tangs had it going.

I supported the move at the time because I had an incorrect view of how good this team actually was.

Table 5 · 04-10-2013, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

At the time that the Flames were pursuing Richards he was probably in the top of the rankings in terms of centers and coming off of a 77 point season with the Stars.

No one could have predicted that he would bust this hard

A player on the wrong side of 30, already playing at (or very close to) his career peak, going into a UFA negotiation. Honestly, which direction did people really think his playing was going to go? Up, up and beyond?

Maybe one doesn't predict a total bust, but it wasn't exactly rocket surgery.

neo45 · 04-10-2013, 03:27 PM

I think they probably are considering this, they might not do it in the end but it is actually an option for them with how many RFA/UFA's they have coming up.

When you have an operating income of 75 mil, you can afford to eat a huge contract for a long time if you think you can use the money on a better player. I just don't see who they could bring in to replace him that is better. I'd say there is about a 10% chance they buy out Richards this offseason

As for those asking why Sather still has a job, it certainly isn't because of his FA signings. He has stocked the organization with terrific young players and has found top talent in the draft without getting any top 10 draft picks. He would run a money-tight team into the ground, but what he does works in New York

Fire · 04-10-2013, 03:30 PM

I doubt he will be signing for less than $5 million. He is a consistent 25 goal scorer 60+ point player. I would be fine with a 3 year 5 mil/yr deal, but I doubt he would want to sign here.

Phanuthier · 04-10-2013, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blankall

Hence the contracts being front loaded. The vast majority of analysts were not predicting Richards to fall off after 1-2 years.

For all intents and purposes, Richards was given a 6 year contract.

I don't know what to tell you, then. Don't believe everything an "analyst" tells you? I knew he was going to fall off in a few years, and I know I wasn't the only one here saying that; lots of people here were saying that. Maybe we should be getting "analyst" jobs....

Tinordi · 04-10-2013, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Remember Iginla was coming off a 43 goal 86 point season when Feaster took his run at Richards. They played like a totally different team post-Darryl that was due to their weak schedule and the fact Iggy-Tangs had it going.

I supported the move at the time because I had an incorrect view of how good this team actually was.

Great post. Refreshing to see someone be accountable for what they thought and said.