Yeah, what a nutjob! Imagine a guy wanting that!
Look, IF Sami got injured with us, he goes on LTIR and we have much $ to play with. Remember how that happened in 2010, which allowed us to beef up our team at the deadline, contributing to our Cup run? It's not the end of the world. It's 2 freaking years. Gillis showed clearly how he valued Salo, and that was that he wasn't worthy of a 2-year deal.
I hoped you'd bring up LTI. What if we don't want to have to be right at the cap so we can even use the LTI exemption? Should we find a way to waste cap space just to get us close enough to do so? What if we'd prefer to have cap space at he beginning to allow for a possible big acquisition at the deadline but that's taken up by whatever replacement we bring in to cover for Salo?
Another point is if Salo wasn't willing to play along with multiple one year deals, what guarantee do we have he'd be willing to play along with not retiring if he isn't injured and just doesn't want to play anymore? He still collects his cheque, so that's clearly not his problem, but it sure becomes Gillis' at that point and I can hear the complaint's now, "Why did we get stuck with an over 35 contract when our window to win is now!"
So if it's so risky to sign guys like Mitchell & Salo, what, then, did you think of the David Booth trade?
And also, since you're so quick to point out the injury risks of them, aren't you concerned about the risks associated with the Garrison deal? Namely, the risk that we're signing a guy at his peak value, who was basically unknown 2 years ago, and who might well just be a one-year wonder - not unlike Nolan Baumgartner, as pointed out by Baggins?
First off, a Garrison deal is neither an over 35 contract nor a situation where we don't have a good idea what level of play to expect from him. He isn't coming off an injury, and he doesn't have a history of injury that we should be concerned of. I know for a fact you weren't worried at all about a long term massive offer since you labelled Gillis a failure when he didn't offer sheet Weber with one, so it's great to see you try and use that as a contrary argument when it comes to injuries.
Garrison had at least shown he was absolutely able to be a very good defensive player, and the offence was a bonus. He certainly earned more than he would have if he were just a defensive guy (but then you brought up Mitchell again...) but Baumer got the deal he did with Philly because of his offence without anything better than him being reasonably reliable to back it up - and his points were much more inflated by PP time (22 of his 34 points). Garrison had less of his points on the PP (only 12 of 33) and is much more than 'reasonably reliable' defensively.
As far as Booth, I wasn't one of those people making proposals about him saying he'd be a great fit. I didn't think it'd be worthwhile considering his contract and what it'd take to get him particularly. Concussions are always a worry, but he'd at least had a season under his belt since the last major concussion to show whether or not he could come back. Mitchell wanted a big deal before even being cleared to play.
While getting Booth may not have been my ideal move, I liked Sturm even less. I'd rather have gone for Fleischmann in the summer but he was a risk not having played since his blood clot issues and a chest injury, so to take Sturm and Samuelsson (who had been good for us in the past but was an aging player dealing with injuries who had only one year left on his deal) and parlay that into Booth (plus Reinprecht for the Wolves in a development/depth role) was a very good result. We certainly weren't going to turn Sturm and Samuelsson into a younger, cheaper, healthier option, so it's a reasonable gamble.
Using cap space on a player who had injuries but was younger is a much preferred to doing so on someone who had even more recent injuries but was older. If he had obviously better options, we didn't hear about it.