posted at 1/16/2011 9:29 AM EST
In Response to Re: Savvy
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Savvy : [Scooter "Waves" a finger at NAS] Barely better than Paille?? Come on. Campbell? Not even close. Marchand, ok, playing great right now. Right now. An asset is not just it's current worth, it is it's future growth potential. At least that's what my as my stock broker keeps telling me.
Posted by scooter244[/QUOTE]
(lol @ the finger)
Is there a future growth potential for a guy in his mid-30's in the NHL? It seems to me like the only direction is down. It's my belief that the idea of the contract was to get the most out of him for the first three or four years and then deal with the last three when they came about. Now, the first three years of this deal are possibly going to be junk, leaving only one possible good year before the imminent decline of skills and ability.
That's a liability in my book, and if they can erase it by waiving him and having someone else take the chance, I would be thrilled.
Let's talk about the worst case for the Bruins: He gets picked up by another team and returns to form. Let's give him 80 points for each of the next three years. One of either Bergeron, Krejci or Seguin will have to fill that ice time. Next season it's 60, then 70, then 75. At the end of that third year, the B's are a goal and four assists off the pace they would have been on...but were able to spend that extra cap room money on a high class winger.
I know this is all in my own little fantasy land, but this is the reasoning behind my thought process.
If someone were to claim Savard, the team would have Krejci, Seguin and Bergeron as the centers. With the free money from Savard and by not re-signing Ryder, they could spend that $8M on a serious business winger like Brad Richards. (I'm sure someone will respond to this with "I don't want Brad Richards on the Bruins. It's an example of a pending UFA. Not a call for the B's to get Brad Richards.)
I can get behind that.