EspenK
Registered User
- Sep 25, 2011
- 15,842
- 4,446
I already gave it. Like it or not, the Jackets are a budget team. Buying Umberger out deepens the team's losses. Please if you disagree that it doesn't deepen the losses, you are welcome to provide proof that paying a player not to play saves money.
I'll even get you started...The Jackets can save money by buying Umberger out and running with a roster of 21 players....for SIX years.
As stated before, I don't give a damn whether he is bought out or not.
Why do you care whether he is bought out so much?
Channeling some of the great posters here, you got proof of that? Last I checked we spent pretty close to the cap last year and ate 1/2 of Gabby's salary to get rid of him. Don't see the evidence thye are a budget team.
And for the last time if you buy out Umberger you save 4.5 million that can be used elsewhere and probably, imo, better. At the end of 3 or six years will the Jackets have more $ in the bank because of buying him out? Most likely not. Will they get a better return on that extra 4.5? Again, imo, yes.
And for Pete's sake who cares how much money they spend as long as they develop a very strong team?