ES seems to be very specific with his comments, so if he is talking about the length of the contract that he should have specified. I don't think he is...
Regardless, you think that no team would have offered him 6 years? ...you think Philly, Detroit, Edmonton, etc would have balked on the signing for Garrison because it was 6 years?
And I'm tired of people saying he had "1 good season"! Sure, he had one good season for points....but we needed a big D man like Garrison who can play the shutdown role. His goal scoring and puck moving abilities is a bonus! Let's see...he's a great shutdown Dman with size who can move the puck AND we now know (from last year when they first tried him in this role) that Garrison also has a boomer of a shot and can put up points.... he has not played 4 years in the NHL by fluke!
He actually possesses all the components that the Nucks and every other team in the NHL needs.... size, skill, can play both sides, can play a great shutdown role AND he can score!
YES, $4.6 is a discount and he would have received 6 years + more money elsewhere.....
TBH, I couldn't care less about his goal totals. As long as he hits, moves bodies and can play the shutdown role than he is more than worth $4.6 mill for 6 years....
The two best shutdown D in the league make 3.5 and 3.4, so if you're happy with him not producing points at 4.6 when he can't hold a defensive candle to Mitchell or Scuderi then it's a good thing you're not a GM, because you'd find yourself in cap trouble extremely fast. If this is his offensive output than he's not worth 4.6, regardless of how well he plays defence and hits.
I believe other GMs may have offered him 6+ years, but I highly doubt it was at that price. I doubt he got offered over 4 once he hit 5 years with anyone else.
I'm not saying it's a bad move right now, if you get a 33 point (82 game schedule), solid defensively Garrison, then he's worth the 4.6 and maybe even more, but the fact is he has not proven that that's what he can do regularly. You just don't commit to a player at that price with that term because of 1 good season in the salary cap world. I'm not bashing Garrison here, I don't think he's a bad player, I am questioning the management team who gave him that amount of money based on what is really a small sample size of games, it's a huge risk and it could very easily be comparable to Ballard's contract in 2-3 years. Hell, if he continues to produce at 0.18 PPG for this year and the next then Gillis has received an extremely lucky get out of jail free card with the second buyout next season, and I guarantee you that nobody will step up and use his defensive play to defend him when Gillis uses that card. Because you don't pay strictly defensive players 4.6 million dollars a year.
Oh and just for the record:
The concept of risk is not one that's well understood around these parts. What's risky is not a 2-year commitment at a pretty low cap hit to a well-established vet like Sami Salo, but a 6-year commitment to an unestablished guy like Jason Garrison who came out of nowhere to be a PP force last year, scoring 17 goals.
And to say that he made a "very big hometown discount"...get serious. He got 6 years at $4.6M per, and he's Jason Garrison. What do you honestly think gave up? Maybe an extra $100K per year to go play in Long Island? The guy absolutely cashed in.
All he talked about was length of the contract. That was the argument he made. If you would have read what he was saying rather than automatically assuming King of the ES made a post that you probably disagree with than you might have noticed it. Instead you just decided to insult him and, I can only assume, sat and waited for the +1's to roll in. It restores my faith in these boards a little bit that you have yet to receive any.