Rick DiPietro obviously would have slaughtered Alexei Yashin, so having Wade Redden pull off the upset might make today's championship match a little bit more interesting (as for tonight, go Butler!). Then again, given DiPietro's dismantling of Vincent Lecavalier in the other semifinal, it might not. In terms of vote numbers, DiPietro has averaged 77.3% of the vote in his three matches, compared to 73.2% for Redden. That makes things look they could be close, but it's possible that Redden's just had a much easier road. I'll make the case for each one after the jump.
I've said three different times that this contract is terrible. The one thing I haven't much considered is the prospect of DiPietro getting back into form and playing well for the Islanders. And with good reason. The injuries he's sustained are debilitating, and at twenty-nine years old, he's already reaching the tail-end of his prime athletic years. On top of that, goaltenders who put up a save percentage of .904 on their first 8,834 shots in the NHL don't then suddenly go on to greatness. If the reason not to vote for DiPietro is that he may yet turn things around, well, it just isn't likely. In fact, it's very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very unlikely.
So what makes Wade Redden's contract worse than that DiPietro abomination? To me, the only thing that could make it worse is the short-term impact of the deal. For three more years, the Rangers will be hurt more by having Redden's deal than they would be if they had DiPietro's deal. The expense is greater and the cap hit more damaging, and three years is actually a pretty long time. There's enough uncertainty with a new CBA needing to be negotiated that short-term impact ought to take precedence. Looked at in that light, Redden's deal is probably worse.
Which player has a worse contract going forward?
(1) Rick DiPietro (322 votes)
(3) Wade Redden (75 votes)
397 total votes