Let's Go Blues

Ruutu15 wrote:I understand why you're frustrated. You just watched your rival cement its roster long term. We can all argue whether or not the loophole should be closed, or even if the NHL should penalize teams for finding a legal workaround to a contract that THEY agreed to. Frontloaded contracts are nothing new, and the only person who could possibly be hurt by it is the player himself. If anyone on the team is worth locking down for 13 years, it's Duncan Keith (and Toews as well). This obviously adds protection of sorts if he gets injured or slows down in the future. Keith obviously has no problem for playing for what will likely amount to be peanuts 10 years from now, or he wouldn't have signed it.

You don't want teams to lock down their young players? For all of the Keiths, Kanes, Toews, and Seabrooks, I've had to endure the Vorobievs, Babchucks, and Radulovs. Why should the Hawks not be able to keep the guys that they've drafted, should they show the desire to sign long term?

Want some of your own Duncan Keiths and Patrick Kanes? Here's an idea, hire better scouts and draft better.

Ruutu15 wrote: Want some of your own Duncan Keiths and Patrick Kanes? Here's an idea, hire better scouts and draft better.

Jackman_the_Iceman wrote:

Ruutu15 wrote: Want some of your own Duncan Keiths and Patrick Kanes? Here's an idea, hire better scouts and draft better.

Or we could suck for 10 years like the Hawks did and get lucky with some of our picks.

[Dooger] 6:49 pm: You have me mistaken with a man who has sex with other men...like
SLS does.

Ruutu15 wrote:

ViPeRx007 wrote:13 years....

lawlz.

13 years is a long time, but Keith is one of the two players on the roster that I would think of giving that contract to. One, he's young but has been in the league long enough to have a good gauge on how his career is going to turn out. Knock on wood, he's proven to be very durable. Second, they had to structure the contract that way due to cap purposes. On the open market, Keith is a maximum contract player. The NHL can complain all they want about that loophole, but they signed the same contract that the NHLPA did.

ViPeRx007 wrote:

Ruutu15 wrote:

ViPeRx007 wrote:13 years....

lawlz.

13 years is a long time, but Keith is one of the two players on the roster that I would think of giving that contract to. One, he's young but has been in the league long enough to have a good gauge on how his career is going to turn out. Knock on wood, he's proven to be very durable. Second, they had to structure the contract that way due to cap purposes. On the open market, Keith is a maximum contract player. The NHL can complain all they want about that loophole, but they signed the same contract that the NHLPA did.

I'm just laughing at the sheer absurdity of a 13 year contract in general and how it makes a mockery of the league, not who it was awarded to.

TSUCookieMonster wrote:

ViPeRx007 wrote:

Ruutu15 wrote:

ViPeRx007 wrote:13 years....

lawlz.

13 years is a long time, but Keith is one of the two players on the roster that I would think of giving that contract to. One, he's young but has been in the league long enough to have a good gauge on how his career is going to turn out. Knock on wood, he's proven to be very durable. Second, they had to structure the contract that way due to cap purposes. On the open market, Keith is a maximum contract player. The NHL can complain all they want about that loophole, but they signed the same contract that the NHLPA did.

I'm just laughing at the sheer absurdity of a 13 year contract in general and how it makes a mockery of the league, not who it was awarded to.

Think of your education... you're in Kindergarden. You like it in Kindergarden and the school that you're in. Hmm.. I think at age 5, I'll sign a contract that will let me finish my elementary, middle, and high school education at the same place. I just hope when I'm 18 I still like it as much as I did when I was 5 and won't want to try a new place. Yes a stretched example, but you get it. Just kinda silly that's all. 5 years would have been my max signing with a team like Chicago. You like it, you sign longer. Not just jump the gun and sign 13 years.

Ruutu15 wrote: Why 'a team like Chicago'? Since the old man died, his son has proven that he has no problem in spending to the cap to build a winner.