Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinordi
Explain why a four year term is bad. Beyond thinking that it's "too long."
How would it negatively impact the team?
|
Because 3 years from now it still exists.
And because, if you were looking to trade a player, having 3 or 4 years left on a deal can be somewhat of an anchor.
Typically, when you trade for a player, you want him to be in the last, or second last year of his contract so that, if things don't work out, if he doesn't fit with your team and fill the role you intended, it isn't a big deal. You aren't left with a lengthy albatross of a contract.
For a guy like Stajan, if things don't work out, whether it be with Calgary or another team, that could likely be it for him. So a longer contract becomes a negative.
It isn't a huge deal, but it is a factor. And that's why the term just tips this into negative territory for me.
I don't have a huge hate for the signing, just think the term is a mistake.
Edit: McLean agrees with me? Damn.