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.
|
I think everyone is massively overthinking this.
If he's ready, keep him up. if not, send him back to Junior.
It's very unlikely he'll be ready. Even the Norris winners seem to be requiring 2 years before they can take a regular turn. Parkeh is not some generational talent, he''s an excellent prospect that likely requires a few years to refine his game.