Quote:
Originally Posted by Groot
Counter point to those that say they don't want to waste and ELC year as it's poor asset management, it could actually be better asset management if you're confident on the players trajectory. Also why you make the decision based on what's best for the players development not his ELC years. Assuming an equal development curve since the discussion is about 'wasting' a year of his cheap ELC. Follow Quinn Hughes development path.
Quinn Hughes
D+1 - NCAA - Burned 1-year ELC
D+2 - NHL - 0.78 ppg -10
D+3 - NHL - 0.73 ppg -24 (56 games Covid season)
Signs 6 years @ $7.85 AAV
D+4 - NHL - 0.89 ppg +10
D+5 - NHL - 0.97 ppg +15
D+6 - NHL - 1.12 ppg +38 (Norris Winner)
How much would Hughes have signed for after his D+4 year? $9 million per? Higher? If Parkeh follows similar growth, signing him to his post-ELC contract may be cheaper for 6-8 years (5-7 years when adjusted for one year sooner) if you can sign him to after his D+3 season versus his D+4 season, saving money when the team is trying to compete.
|
ELC is overrated unless you are an elite team needing cheap contracts. That 2nd contract is the one to manage IMO. This is a prime example of if he is best to be playing in the NHL, those 3 years in the NHL at 18-21 could lead to s steal of a deal on that 2nd contract.
Dahlin is another example, but the Sabres signed him to a bridge deal, and it cost them millions.