Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
Hanifin isn’t past his prime.
You’ve taken 3 signings and turned them into 4. Neal wasn’t a failure because he aged badly - he was just a failure as a player. The other two - we’ll see. But then you ignore counter examples like Gio or Backlund.
Are the final years of a contract going to be worse? Sure. Is Hanifin’s ask too much? Maybe. But people should quit pretending there’s some hard and fast rule when it comes to players, contracts and longevity.
|
My theory isn’t to name continuous players and argue back and forth about exceptions. It’s to say that after about the age of 28 players tend to drift downwards in their trajectory. There are exceptions as you mentioned but with the game quickly getting younger and faster, that’s also money tied up in a vet that will have to go to a young player. $8.5 for 8 is too much given what our current situation is with two vets signed long term and to high amounts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aarongavey
What a weird argument, don’t sign players past the age of 34 because they do not age well = do not sign Hanifin to a contract where 95% of the contract will take place when he is 34 or younger. He will not even really hit the age you are concerned about under this next contract.
|
That was more a statement in general, yes it was silly reading it, so my bad. It’s not applicable in this situation but you are more likely to have peak Hanifin for three or four years before a decline. Just not feeling it for the above reasons.