Joined: May 2015
Posts: 19,588
Likes: 6,728
Just going to play devils advocate here, why is it everyone agrees that paying a player into his 30's is bad and paying a young player in his statistical prime is bad..............sooooo when exactly are you suppose to pay a player what he's worth???
i get it, RFA's are our personal property and we can do with them whatever we want...............(sarcasm in case Im not obvious enough) but take off the rosy glasses for a sec and remember your simply paying the UFA cost for the RFA player now during his prime years instead of when they are older and they'll more than likely not be able to live up to that contract.
We've got so used to the idea that RFA's must "earn" their big pay day but in truth we resent them for that. By the time they become UFA's they want big payouts that take them way into their non productive years and because its free market, teams need to overpay on top of that.
Under the previous way of thinking, Provy will get his ELC at 925K, followed by a 5-8 year at 5.5M, than hits free agency at approx 27-30 so then gets his big payout of 10M+ for 5-7 years.
Under the way the new NHL, players are pushing for the ELC 925K followed by the big payout at 8 years at 10M followed by the readjusted payout of 3-5 year stints at 5-10M based on how well the player did entering into free agency.
I know as fans this sucks but this is WWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYY better for the players and more in line with when they are paid for what they actually give you on the ice. That's what we want at the end of the day. Players getting what they deserve, whether that's less when they're older or more when they're younger.
justaBoss and UpsideDownQue liked this.
Reply
CapFriendly
CapFriendly