Fusspot rants, embarrassing photos of yourself and general correspondence go here: universalnicks@gmail.com

Jason Spezza. 2 years. $9 million.

That's bad math. Here's the real equation of concern:

Current committed salary: ~$35.3 million
Available salary (going right to the cap): ~$8.6 million

Eugene Melnyk's "imposed cap": $40 million

Never mind that the Sens still haven't a top defenseman to replace Chara, but there are still the RFA contracts of Peter Schaefer, Antoine Vermette, Chris Neil and Ray Emery to deal with (I have not included Martin Havlat in that list, remaining under the assumption that he will eventually be traded).

I understand that Jason Spezza falls into the category of being the franchise's new face, but this can't be justified. Not at such a critical stage. And for the life of me, I can't figure out what John Muckler is building for -- the present or the future -- because in my estimation, the Sens will be facing some major hurdles, both in the short and long term.

More later.

4 responses to "John Muckler's new math"

  1. A case could have been made that Spezza get $500,000 less per year than Eric Staal.

    reality check

  2. That case has already been made over at Hockey Country.

    The Universal Cynic

  3. Tie would like to know if ...oh nevermind!

    Eddie thefuckin' Eagle Belfour

  4. I thought the contract given to Spezza was stupid.

    Since it has been proven decisively that the salary cap won't stop GM's from throwing money at free agents, one of the few mechanisms totally under their own power is the RFA process.

    Spezza is a young player, completely under the control of the team - so why pony up near-UFA money for him? Muckler threw away the ability to pay him below market value for no reason. Why give away that leverage? How can a GM be expected to put together a championship-quality team if he ignores management tools the RFA process affords?

    I saw Emery got almost a million dollars too...not back for a backup goalie.

    Wardo