Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie
Nobody signs a 30+ year old expecting them to not decline at some point. It's a fairly simple consideration of the team's trajectory and where they are in their build-cycle. I don't understand how posters can be so hopeless about the next few years, but worry that we're somehow undermining our potential in the late 2020s.
As for GM standards, IMO you are underestimating the autonomy of every other stakeholder in the league (ie. all players, coaches, and other GMs). Every single decision is a compromise. Waiting to find out that Huby wasn't an immediate fit doesn't really help anything...it would simply force you into an urgent situation to sell low.
|
The OP mentioned that the Huberdeau contract was more of a sure thing than the Lindholm contract. In my opinion there was a higher chance Lindholm living up to a $5M contract as a 23 yearold than Huberdeau to a $10.5M contract as a 30 year old. That's why I brought up the decline, which I agree - GMs and front offices project for the duration of the contract.
Again I agree that hockey decisions such as extending a player are a negotiation and therefore a compromise. However a GM also has the option to not sign a player if that situation handcuffs the franchise for the foreseeable future. Teams like Vegas, or Carolina traded away and lost good players for nothing, yet somehow they remain competitive each year by shrewed desicions and good management. At this point it seems as though selling low on Huberdeau would've been better than commiting $84M to him. We'll see what he is next year, but he needs to become a star again at that price tag.