[Signing] Bruins sign Tuukka Rask. 8 Years.. $7mil Per - Page 4 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Badgers Nose · 07-10-2013, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sa226

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"

The only bright side is that eventually Chia screws himself and has to divest good assets for cheap. Eventually he is going to have to make a mistake.

Mr.Coffee · 07-10-2013, 11:00 PM

its the term that sucks about this contract. Boston seems a bit lost to me, I'm a big fan of the team but hate overall all the moves they've been making.

I don't think, motivation speaking, you should sign any guy beyond a 3 year deal. Maybe the extremely rare superstars but not guys like Rask.

So many bad, bad contracts out there.

The Swedish Flame · 07-11-2013, 04:19 AM

Well someone's laughing all the way to the bank.

vilzeh · 07-11-2013, 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TahitiTreat

$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.

Yes he did.

Kipper_3434 · 07-11-2013, 06:17 AM

How much will Lundquist get now? The rangers are screwed salary-cap wise

Huntingwhale · 07-11-2013, 10:27 AM

Locke · 07-11-2013, 10:29 AM

Again, what a stupid contract. He basically got max dollars and max term.

cannon7 · 07-11-2013, 10:33 AM

The Bruins are now ~$1.5 over the cap. What do we give up for Marchand?

jesters91 · 07-11-2013, 10:36 AM

Savard's 4.027 comes off when he is placed on LTIR.

Meers · 07-11-2013, 02:48 PM

So, this is what you get for half a season of quality play between the posts. Wow.

Flames Draft Watcher · 07-11-2013, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meers

So, this is what you get for half a season of quality play between the posts. Wow.

Did you only start following hockey this season or what? Rask has been very good for a while and was elite these playoffs.

doctajones428 · 07-11-2013, 06:23 PM

I'm glad the lockout fixed everything

Stormchaser · 07-11-2013, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doctajones428

I'm glad the lockout fixed everything

well its always that the owners refuse to learn.

cowtown75 · 07-11-2013, 06:33 PM

God these types of contracts are stupid. I think Rask is a good goalie, but not 7 million a year for 8 years good. It's only his first year as a starter. Hopefully he doesn't pull a Steve Mason cause that contract is going to be hard to move if he starts sucking.

Beatle17 · 07-11-2013, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stormchaser

well its always that the owners refuse to learn.

I disagree, the owners learned fine. They will pay the stars stupid money and fill the rest of the team out with league minimum players (NBA rosters anyone?). The players don't give a rats ass about the union brothers as long as they get paid. If Rask was really interested in helping his team out he could have taken less money so they could build a good TEAM, but instead he took the usual route and took the money, screw the rest of them, that is why you see so many teams in cap trouble. The owners won the lockout and will continue winning because they only have to pay out 50% of the money now.

Brannigans Law · 07-11-2013, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doctajones428

I'm glad the lockout fixed everything

This post is the equivalent to conservatives who scoff at climate change on a cold day. Climate and the days weather are different. This is one contract and one off season of free agent spending. Rask'a contract doesn't magically mean Boston had more cap space. They will now have to make adjustments to their roster to fit him.

Jacks · 07-11-2013, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brannigans Law

This post is the equivalent to conservatives who scoff at climate change on a cold day. Climate and the days weather are different.

Take it to the off topic forum.

powderjunkie · 07-13-2013, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beatle17

I disagree, the owners learned fine. They will pay the stars stupid money and fill the rest of the team out with league minimum players (NBA rosters anyone?). The players don't give a rats ass about the union brothers as long as they get paid. If Rask was really interested in helping his team out he could have taken less money so they could build a good TEAM, but instead he took the usual route and took the money, screw the rest of them, that is why you see so many teams in cap trouble. The owners won the lockout and will continue winning because they only have to pay out 50% of the money now.

Do you want to take a pay cut to help your company out?

I believe in what my organization does, and what us to be successful, but no way in hell am I taking a dime less than I can squeeze.

Erick Estrada · 07-13-2013, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doctajones428

I'm glad the lockout fixed everything

It is working but slowly. We are only just starting to see teams getting handicapped by the long term deals. A lot of teams can't keep their own players in free agency because they are up against the cap and in a couple of years there won't be compliance buyouts as quick fixes. As time goes on this is going to be a bigger problem even if the cap rises. Teams like the Leafs and Bruins made two longtime deals each that are great today but not likely great down the road and they will pay eventually.

A team like the Flames that has a lot of cap money only has to get it's act together and build a good young team with cap flexibility to maybe go out and land a missing piece or two via free agency. It's on them to get better here and capitalize as more an more teams get in cap trouble.