Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Reeeeead
You are arguing semantics and belabouring a point that doesn't matter.
We are trying to define who backlund is today and over the next 6 years.
His most recent 3 years is a comfortable period of time to define who he is today and what kind of production we can expect from him.
That's all that matters. Few players have consistent trends over the entirety of their careers. Developing years, peak, downhill aging. You won't have much success trying to define a players expected consistent production adding up the various pieces of their life cycle.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
|
His point here matters a lot!
When you sign a six year contract extension, I think it's perfectly okay to think about a players production over more than his peak three seasons, and to evaluate the contract with consideration to his full body of work. In fact, the player is more likely to regress to career averages than he is to maintain production levels over the life of the contract given his age.
$5.35 M for Backlund over the next 2-3 years is probably going to work out really well. And if the Falmes have an all-in window that aligns with the front end of this contract then from that perspective this contract probably makes a lot of sense. But when I look it at it for value over term, I am left wanting. I just don't think the value is there over the life of the contract.
I get the argument that it's the price you have to pay in order to get the next three years, but I just don't love where that leaves the team for the three years after that.
Even as the cap increases over the next couple of years (hopefully), $5.35 M is a lot of cap space tied up in what will almost certainly be the team's third line centre.