Quote:
Originally Posted by ComixZone
Now picture this:
You do this exact same thing, except you do it for a player that has not played a single game for your organization.
I mean, if you're arguing that the Oilers shouldn't have kept Draisaitl, I don't think you'll find a hockey mind in the game that would agree with you. You're effectively arguing for tanking, drafting elite talent, and then trading them away before or right around when they generally win a Stanley Cup (see: Colorado - MacKinnon, Tampa - Stamkos, Hedman).
Sure you could make the argument they should have kept it shorter term, but I'm guessing the player wouldn't have signed that contract and then yep - Edmonton's competitive cycle is over.
E will always = NG, but the idea of drafting elite talent and then losing them because you refuse to sign them long-term once they're 29? Nah, can't agree with that.
|
You're well within your rights to disagree, but I think this contract is great for Los Angeles, Anaheim, San Jose, Calgary, Vancouver, Las Vegas, and Seattle. Players typically have max value from around ages 20-31.
I favor ELC-Max-short term.
I mean what if the CBA max contract was 9 years? Would you have been in favor of that? 10? At some point the emperor has no clothes.