Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
So it should have been an 8 year contract and that’s a better comparable?
The risk here is that it’s a guy with only one year of NHL. They obviously liked what they saw, but it’s certainly not unheard of for rookies to look great and then plateau or get worse.
|
Contracts are always a risk. The far riskier proposition historically is to give longterm deals to guys who were really good in their 20’s who are either about to enter or already are in their 30’s. Those contracts disproportionately do not work out.
The Sens have signed Stutzle, Sanderson, Tkachuk, Norris, Chabot, Batherson to long term deals.
Stutzle has 8 years left at 8.35 million and is coming off a 90 point season as a 21 year old. That contract looks like it may work out.
Tkachuk has 5 years left at 8.2 million. He is coming off a 83 point season as a 23 year old. That one looks like it may work out.
Batherson has 4 years left at basically 5 million. 62 points last season as a 24 year old and a point a game pace the year before that until he got injured. That contract looks like it may work out.
Chabot has 5 years left at 8 million. Since he signed the contract he has been beset by injury problems. Despite that fact he has produced at a 51 point pace per 82 games in the first 3 years of that contract. Jury is out on that one but right now it is the only one that they are not getting great returns on.
jury still out on Norris and Sanderson.
If one did a similar analysis of any set of 4 contracts for guys over 30 longterm after the first 1-4 seasons after they were signed the productivity would not even be close. The younger guys always outperform their contracts at a higher rate than the older guys.