Quote:
Originally Posted by traptor
Yup definitely.
I feel like a lot of people underestimate how long 8 years is. My unborn child is going to be in grade 2 when their contracts are finishing. If you have one guy 30+ guys for 8 years whatever, you can work around it.
It gets ALOT more difficult to work around 4 guys making big bucks well into their 30s.
I personally don't want to watch a core of Huberdeau, Lindhol, Kadri, and Weegar for 8 more ####ing years as they trend down.
I can guarantee that sometime over those 8 years it will bite us in the ass and hard.
We gotta ask is the juice worth the squeeze? For me, with this core, it's not. I see them currently as a perimeter playoff team not a true contender. That's not what you want to be when you're signing these types of contracts.
|
That's what bothers me about these scenarios. Us as fans know this is a bad idea given past experience on our team as well as other teams' experiences, but we keep going down the same road. To me it's one of two explanations:
1) Desperate to be liked by someone with skill
2) Laziness and lack of confidence that nobody else can be found or drafted to make the decision to get younger
Signing so many older guys to long term deals when they're not superstars is a recipe of disaster. We got a taste of that this year already, and most chalked it up to Sutter, but it exposed how bad an aging core can be in quickly shifting fast and skilled league. Instead the wrong identity has been chosen of 80s hockey and it's unlikely to work. So annoyed as a fan to see this line of thinking.