Quote:
Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina
You are missing the most important thing you are trying to accomplish which is to maintain or grow the value of the asset.
3 outcomes
1. He walks for nothing
2. He is signed to a risky long-term deal
3. He is traded for a return
Depending on what you can get for him I would strongly suggest the third outcome in the best one for this organization. And if you agree with that it is reasonable to suggest that the time to maximize that return is now to avoid several risk factors that will erode the player's value further
- restrictive NTC kicking in
- less term on the very affordable contract
- continued degradation in the player's value due to declining or continued poor play.
The first two are certainties. Those are things that are going to happen. The last one is an unknown. The only unknown that could improve the players value as an asset is improved play.
So balance all the risk factors, and to me you conclude two things
1. The best outcome is to trade the player
2. The time to maximize the return for that trade is this off-season
So that's what you are trying to accomplish and what is drives the intent to trade him.
|
Why is a long term deal risky? Isn't every long term deal risky? If you trade Gaudreau and then sign an oft injured Taylor Hall to a 6 or 7 year deal is that not also risky? If you give Tkachuk an 8 year deal and he suffers multiple concussions and injuries due to the way he plays wasn't that risky? I think Ward's coaching stifled the offense of this club, you bring a puck possession quick transition coach and I think Gaudreau is an 80-100 point player and given his non physical play I don't see any reason why he won't be that player for the duration of a long term deal.