Salo's 37 years old, Garrison is 28. The one that is more likely to be on the decline is pretty obvious. But for a supposed Cup-contender, would I rather have Salo's contract, or Garrison's contract? Salo's, easily. I'm already sickened by all of the excuses that I'll see everywhere on this board, when Garrison walks in and underwhelms:
-"Oh, he's young. Give him time".
-"Oh, he came from Florida. It's an adjustment to a hockey market".
-"Oh, he's just getting used to our system. He'll be fine."
AKA, the things we heard about Keith Ballard since roughly November 2010.
I don't remember anyone guaranteeing Garrison would be an obvious and immediate upgrade on Salo. Certainly we've been saying he'll be able to do similar to what Salo had produced for us last year while not being a downgrade, and will be a definite upgrade in future considering Salo's age and likelihood of retirement soon.
Blaming one for another's performance is a fallacy. Just because he and Ballard are both from Florida doesn't mean they'll both have the same results coming here. Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely? No.
It's just as likely that Weber won't live up to a massive contract without Suter to be his partner, but you never complained about that.
Yep, fair enough. One possibility. But surely, the odds of Weber playing out the year in Nashville, without getting traded (to Philly, for example), with Poile having the knowledge that he's not interested in signing L/T, would be pretty lean.
It's a possibility we've been trying to tell you about for some time.
If you understood how offer sheets worked, you'd know by Nashville matching any offer sheet they are forced to keep him for one year. One year, not one season. By this time next year they would already have paid out two signing bonuses worth $13M each (and $1M in salary if there's no lockout).
That means he'd be a UFA before Nashville would be able to trade him in Gillis' scenario (oddly enough, why Gillis suggested it like we've been saying). That means the odds would be 100% Weber would play out the year in Nashville without getting traded and be a UFA come this time next year.
Even with this current offer sheet, Nashville is forced to keep him until this time next year (two signing bonuses paid out, $1M in salary) so they could be likely to try and keep him until the trade deadline to get a better return for him. Maybe they try and keep him longer term even if he wants out considering the cash they'll have invested.
Plenty of reasons to see how Weber will be stuck there longer in his current scenario than if he'd gone the one year route. Maybe he'll be happy with that, maybe not if they can't improve because of his massive contract.
Well, I think it's pretty obvious why he liked Philly's OFFER better than Gillis' idea. With Gillis' idea, Weber takes all the risk, Gillis gets him a year later for absolutely nothing. Nice thought, but so is a sleepover with 5 Playmates. Weber's not stupid.
Never said he was stupid, never said he wouldn't be risking losing potential income. In this case he was trying to get the sleepover with the 5 playmates rather than picking up the cute girl next door he wanted growing up. Too bad he had to settle for the same girl he's been thinking about leaving for some time, regardless of how nice she is.
I am glad you were able to pin a percentage on how much chance Holmgren had (45%? what formula did you use to come up with that?). The board probably would have gone crazy, almost as crazy as when Nashville matched and people were outraged that he was now locked up long term instead of having the option to come here as a UFA next year.