henchman21
Mr. Meeseeks
- Feb 24, 2012
- 65,652
- 51,253
I don't think it is unjustified for them, but it is certainly a risk. They lined up 9m in a defensemen who hasn't played 82 regular season games and has less than 15 points. Including playoffs he is just barely above 100 games and still less than 20 points. I'd say that is a pretty risky deal. I get the why they should do it (lack of defensive talent in the pool, bet on a former top 10 pick who is just off his best performance as a pro)... but this could easily end in Broberg in the AHL in 25-26 and disgruntled.I guess, but I don't think they are a team that can't afford to take risks. This is why you always need to look at context with deals, and not just at the money/term and go "that's terrible value for that player". Well, not for every team. That's why UFAs are overpaid in general.
Teams that are not a surefire playoff team should be the ones taking risks.
Holloway is less risky in that he at least looks like he established himself in the NHL and his floor is probably an overpaid 4th liner with the likelihood of being a 3rd liner being pretty solid. I don't think there is the upside with with Holloway (I don't see 2nd liner in his game), but he should at least be in the NHL during and after his contract.