Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
But the question isn’t whether a guy needs to be signed to an 8, it’s whether there should be exceptions to never signing guys over 24 who aren’t elite for 8. Longer term generally equates to lower AAV. Especially for guys over 25, or when you compare it against two four year contracts.
Based on the last 8 years, would it have been better to sign Jarnkrok to 8 at a slightly reduced AAV (or even just 2M, if we don’t want to guess at whether he’d take less), or a 6 at 2M and a 4 at 2.1M?
|
Easier to say in hindsight, but I'd still say no, because of the risk you're taking on. Your example highlights good value, but if he falls into replacement level, which is very plausible with this type of player, you've attached way too much term to an average player that's relatively easy to replace in today's NHL especially with so many young players in the league.
Obviously, no exceptions is a hard line, and trust your performance coaches and analytics that certain players will age and their skillsets will develop well, but I've never been a believer in attaching big term to 3rd line type players. The upside just isn't there.