Comments on: Michalek Re-signs

By: I_hate_LA

I_hate_LA — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 20:53:09 +0000

Michalek is a great signing. 6 years for 26M is a steal imho.

By: Uncleben

Uncleben — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 10:44:25 +0000

has anyone heard the Berard to SJ rumor?

i think it would be a great fit. better than taking in Markov.

just wondering...

By: rtpuckhog

rtpuckhog — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 19:16:17 +0000

I agree with you on the standpoint of the new NHL. The current CBA allows players to become UFA's at too young an age, forcing GM's to take risks in order to secure a core group of players for the long term. Michalek's contract is low risk if you look at the group he'll be playing with for the next few years.

With that said, this contract make a hell of a lot more sense than the one Edmonton offered Penner. You wanna talk about unproven and a step back...

By: TheDonkey

TheDonkey — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 19:12:28 +0000

K-lowe is a good part of the reason. Also consider:

beginning in 2008-09 and for the duration of the agreement, a player age 27 with four accrued seasons or [any player] with seven accrued seasons will be an unrestricted free agent. For purposes of qualifying for unrestricted free agency, the 2004-05 cancelled season will be counted as a year of accrued service....

The lower age of UFAs is at least as important as the K-lowe signing. If you think you have the next star, you better lock him up. This is not bad for hockey. It makes it more interesting and will lead to more parity. Not only do the teams not know for sure what they are locking up, but the player is not certain how good he might be. So, the player signs for a smaller long-term deal if he has any doubts, maybe even in "undesirable" markets like Edmonton or Calgary. This is vastly more interesting than watching all the big names wait til they can sign with the Rangers and go off to waste away their glory years.

By: kamullia

kamullia — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 16:51:49 +0000

I would not say it was the only reason, but it certainly was an important motivating reason. Not one that I think is beneficial to the NHL when teams are forced to sign unproven young players long-term all mostly based on potential rather than on proven accomplishments and performance.

It is a step back, especially from the owners effort of introducing new entry-level contracts limitations and restrictive rules with the aim at having players prove themselves thoroughly instead of being paid on potential.

By: papichulo71

papichulo71 — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 16:10:01 +0000

You can interpret this as meaning that if the Sharks are in the top 5 in the West at Christmas Marleau stays. If not he'll be packaged.

By: habsrock_19

habsrock_19 — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 16:00:41 +0000

lol

By: riseagainst

riseagainst — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 15:25:10 +0000

Kevin Lowe is the only reason Michalek was given this extension now.

By: Sharks06

Sharks06 — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 15:04:10 +0000

This is a good deal considering Michalek's potential. A lot of people are saying that this could mean marleau's days are numbered. I dont think it they are, but tis certainly puts a bunch of pressure on him.