TSE wrote:Cause any time you pay a guy more than 5 million dollars you are making a serious investment and you are changing the entire landscape of your team. If we have all that money then we can sign 2 big time FA defensemen this year if we want, and have those 2 critical spots filled for the future with 2 very good players. Now we won't be able to do that...
Please name me the two defensemen, out of this year's free-agency pool, that you would rather invest multi-year contracts into rather than have a Norris Trophy winning captain back on an expiring contract? This free-agency pool is weak, especially amongst defensemen. Lidstrom re-signing is a blessing - we get an amazing player, who also is our team's captain, back on a one year deal. Allowing us to have immense cap-flexibility next offseason.
TSE wrote:so to move on from Lidstrom is going to take an additional year for his spot to be replaced, and there's no guarantee that the options will be as good as they are now. We are risking replacing him later at a more expensive rate and to get a worse player than we can get now.
This is purely ridiculous. First of all, we have a couple of the best defensive prospects in the league in Kindl and Smith. It is true that I've been praying for a hard nosed defenseman for years now, but that individual isn't available in this free-agency class. You say that there's no guarantee that the options will be better next offseason, but a simple glance at next years crop suggests the contrary. Also, how did you come up with the conclusion that next year we'll have to pay at a higher rate for a free-agent? With greater overall talent next year's offseason, it would seem to suggest the competition would bring the rate down.
TSE wrote:And it's a small price to pay to not use him this year considering the 2nd guy we would sign would likely have a higher percentage of matching up to Lidstrom's value than the guy we get next year to replace him...
There is absolutely no basis for this assumption, no offense, but it's bordering on nonsensical.
TSE wrote:and I see millions going to a guy who will be gone next year, and I'd rather have that money go to players who for sure are going to stick around.
I don't want "that guy" sticking around for more than a year, I want this norris cup winner and a competent one year rental so we can be players in a much stronger free-agency class next year. That is why I was a big proponent of offering one year deals to Markov, Foote, Jovanovski, Salo, Hamrlik, etc. Who, most of which we would be able to sign along with Lidstrom.
When I asked "how so?", I didn't mean for you to give me a more vague restatement of your previous posts. Please give examples and be precise with your qualms against resigning the reigning Norris Trophy winner.