Quote:
Originally Posted by howard_the_duck
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.
|
I don’t know, I’d argue the value is pretty high with the bottom six types because the contracts can be had for way better value. Imagine Coleman for 8 years at 2.5 or 3 instead of 4 at 1.8 and then another 6 at 4.9.
Obviously, it takes a player that values security over maximizing salary and confidence in scouting and player development that there’s something there long term. I agree that the risk is a lot higher for guys in that 28-30 range because you’re buying cheaper prime years at the cost of heavier twilight years, but I think max term for 25/26 mid-lineup guys can payoff huge.