best hairstyles for women with thinning hair

Rangers Re-Sign Mike Sauer

Per Andrew Gross, the Rangers and RFA defenseman Mike Sauer have agreed to terms on a deal.  Sauer was one of four RFAs to file for arbitration just three days ago.  This signing avoids an arbitration hearing between the Rangers and Sauer.  The deal is worht $2.5 million over two years, or $1.25 million per season.  When initially predicting what it would cost to lock up Sauer, we said somewhere between $1.1 million and $1.4 million, so we were right on the money here.  Consider this contract a win for both sides, as Sauer gets a 150% increase on his salary, and the Rangers have one of their projected top-four defensemen signed for under $1.5 million.

7 Responses to “Rangers Re-Sign Mike Sauer”

  1. Matt J says:

    Good price. Right around what we all expected. Interesting to see what Boyle will get. I’m gonna say $1.75 million.

  2. Dave says:

    For Boyle, I’d assume $1.5 million, but he’s the tricky one to guess.

  3. PJP says:

    Would love to see Boyle’s contract as a 2-year deal with incentives on points / goals. He had a good year last year, but he still needs to show some consistency before earning a big payday. Lower base with significant incentives would flush that out in a relatively short-term timeframe.

  4. Zen says:

    The problem with Boyle is that I believe that he becomes an UFA next season, so Sather will weigh the positives/negatives to locking him up long term or risk losing him as an UFA. Given that he has done absolutely squat in his career until this past season makes the whole thing so difficult as well. It is also another example of spending so much darn money on bottom-six forwards. It is quite conceivable that if you consider Stepan an top 6 forward, that only one player (Prust) on this team that is a bottom 6 forward will be making less than $1M (cap hit). That just isn’t good balance of spending IMO. The money should be spent more on scoring, not checking.

    • Section 121 says:

      Generally speaking, I would rather have 4 to 5 solid players at 2.5M to 3.5M each than 1 or 2 “elite” guys at 7M+ each.

      It takes a team to win the cup, not 1 or 2 elite guys. Spreading the wealth amongst the key guys on the team (the solid players) is a good idea. It should match up with the talent level top to bottom (having too many sub par, less than 1M players on your team is probably not a good thing).

      • Dave says:

        That sounds good in theory, but you need both elite talent and a core group of solid players to win Cups.

  5. Walt says:

    Good signing, the kid earned the money given him!!!!!