Island Nucklehead wrote:
Anyways, maybe the Canucks are placing a higher premium on buying up "UFA years" than other teams, but it's clear that other teams are more successful extending similar players under similar circumstances.
That could very well be, but if it is its by a couple hundred thousand, not millions.
I would argue that the Canucks' difficulties in recruiting UFAs, it makes sense to pay more for UFA years. Its not as drastic as, say, Edmonton, who has to pay Ryan Nugent-Hopkins (43 points, 43.8% FO, $6mil) to hang on to 2 years of UFA. But nonetheless, attracting UFAs is a problem, always has been and always will be.
I agree Zack Smith's contract is better, though I'd be wary of extending a 3rd-liner to age 32 who was playing in Denmark 4 years ago. Sutter undoubtedly is more established/experienced, he's a bit younger and maybe (just maybe) has a bit more offensive upside - he was 24 when he was extended, vs Smith at 28. All those attributes cost $.
I would actually say Benning's worst contract is Dorsett's. The "replacement player" for Dorsett costs $2 mil less, and doesn't have a broken neck. Worst case scenario, i.e. if we accept that Smith and Sutter are equivalent players, Sutter's replacement player is $1 mil less.
But whatever you may think of Sutter holding the team back, its obviously dwarfed by the $14 million for 30 goals from the Sedin (and 7 on the top PP from them). Sutter getting an extra $1 million wouldn't have done anything about that. Maybe drafting Nylander and Tkachuk would have, though I doubt Willie would have coached them to the offensive production they hit.