Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
Is a GM who cares more about the next 5 years than about years 6-8 necessarily bad at their job?
The NHL is cyclical. Teams rarely win the big prize without pushing all their chips in at some point. Signing a player to a contract that you know will be ugly in 6 years might be the smart thing to do if it means icing the best roster possible at the top of the cycle.
|
I get going for it when a team has a Stanley Cup window but some of those teams have shown they don't want to pay the price after. The Kings had that weird thing with Mike Richards where they managed to void his deal. The Hawks used the skin condition thing to get out of Hossa's cap hit. The Oilers got rid of Smith's last year are trying to rid themselves of Kane's contract. A lot of these organizations that care more about the next 5 years have shown that they simply don't want to pay the price for it after. If the league fixed the LTIR nonsense then maybe teams would be less willing hand out these long term contracts to 30 year old players. Heck it's a running joke already that Chris Tanev will likely spend the last few years of his contract on LTIR and that's very likely going to happen.