I wonder how many players will have to be signed to long term deals that will look bad once they start aging before people will learn that giving term to guys leaving their 20's is almost always a terrible idea. Barrie and Muzzin are going to get big contracts somewhere, especially Barrie but it won't be with TO for that term. Dubas knows the chances these will turn sour are very high.

Seriously. One of the things I like about Dubas - he's one of the few GMs to have figured this out before his veteran peers

Dubas loves giving players the contracts they want not the ones they should have. That's a pretty nieve way of thinking because do you really think players in their late 20's will settle for 2-3 year contracts? Why should they have to move their family that much? In Barries case he is 28 I believe which means he has 4-5 years left in his prime. One more year than that won't hurt. Muzzin is a physical beast who's great defensively and shutting down top players. He is also a late bloomer. He's got 3-4 more really good-solid years in him. 5 years for Muzz at 5M is manageable especially on a team that has always been bad defensively. At least this decade any way.
These are things every GM should evaluate before giving a player term. It's a case by case type of thing. Not every player is worth a 5-7 year deal.

I am assuming you are a Kings fan by your profile pic, so I imagine you think a players prime runs until they are 35. That is incorrect. A players prime runs from 23ish to about 30 with some players still being good longer but the overwhelming vast majority of players decline in their early 30's. Remember when Neal was signed by Calgary and many thought it was a good move? Barrie can ask for whatever he wants but TO won't give him term. That isn't what Dubas does.

Which contracts are you talking about? Tavares signed for less than market value. Nylander wanted 8.5. Kapanen/Johnsson/Kerfoot signed between 3.2-3.5. I'll give you Matthews, but he was a prime offer sheet candidate and Toronto would have had to match given his star status. Maybe they saved money, who knows.

And I think you're overestimating the duration of a player's prime. I'd say prime years are between 23-27, with a small decline in performance until 30, then some players fall off of cliffs. Look at the recent trend in baseball's free agency. Allstars coming off of career years but are hovering around 30 aren't getting the contracts they're looking for because GMs are learning you shouldn't pay a player for what they've done in their 20s but can't get done entering their 30s

Actually you are incorrect. Prime years are in most cases 28-32. Players are still developing at 23 bud. Yes I am a Kings fan and not happy with my old team..

Statistically speaking, players almost always have their best years around the age of 24.

What stats are those lol. And now its 24? Again, most players are still developing at that age, statistically speaking..

Name one top caliber player who dropped off at age 32. I'm not talking about a bad season that can be recovered, but a player that dropped off at 32 and never got their groove back. I'll say the same thing I said to the other guy, most players are still developing at 23/24. You can make the argument that 25/26-32 are prime years, but in most cases 27/28-32 are true prime years for almost every player. You cant just say 23 or 24 is a prime age like that's the case for every player. It's not. Do you know how many late bloomers the NHL holds?

@LoganOllivier

Around 23 is what I said but generally a player will have their best season around 24 and keep at that level till around 28 when it starts turning downward slightly until things really start declining around 32. Look at pretty much every star player and most have their best season around 24. Crosby, McKinnon, Malkin, Kessel, etc its a very easy to track correlation. I know you'll point to a few guys who had their career years later but the vast majority of players follow this trend.

Corey Perry

Those are also super star players... Hears another example right from my home team, Kopitar, Brown, and Doughty had career years the 2017-18 season. Kopitar was

All of those are super star players... I'll give you an example right from my home team, Kopitar, Doughty, and Brown just had career years the 2017-18 Season. Doughty was 28, Kopitar about 29, and Brown 32/33. Like I said MOST CASES. Super star players are different dude they came in their 1st season and blew up the league. How does that figure into NHL players in general?

Due to Injury. Got another one?

And also what player in the NHL starts to drop off a little at age 28? Are you kidding me? Where do you get this ridiculous information from?

Scientifically speaking, fast twitch muscle fibers peak at 23; your muscles are strongest at age 25; the average age for world records sports-wide is 26; endurance peaks at 27. Ovechkin just set the record for the oldest player to lead the league in scoring at 33, supposedly 1 year removed from his prime? No. Otherwise it wouldn't have been a record. Check NHL records and at age they were set at.

There is a reason why LA is in a rebuild despite having Kopitar, Doughty, Quick, Carter, Kovalchuk, Muzzin, and Martinez on their roster at the beginning of the 2018 season. You saw the same thing with Chicago. Both teams still have their championship cores yet both are on the downward trend. Pittsburgh too.

I'm/we're using superstars because their peaks will contrast with their lows. An average NHLer/athlete/person will follow the same trend.

And it's not a coincidence the worst contracts in the NHL are attached to those who were overpaid for what they did, not what they're projected to do. Look up bad nhl contracts and every single player will be in their 30s

The Kings lacked supporting cast around Kopitar Doughty and Quick just like the blackhawks lacked supporting cast around Toews and Kane(Crawford had injuries)
I still don't understand how you think every players prime is in their early 20s.


"I'm/we're using superstars because their peaks will contrast with their lows. An average NHLer/athlete/person will follow the same trend."
That makes no sense. How does that apply to Jake Muzzin, and all the other NHLers who have grown and bettered there game. These players are called 'late bloomers' the NHL has seen very many of them. Again most players produce and have great years from ages 28-32. Super stars aside. Yeah some have really good years at ages 26 and 27 but have and will still be good till they are 32 sometimes even older.

The average age for Stanley cup winning teams from 1965-2014 was 27.2. Of the 48 seasons, 45/48 teams had an average age of 29 or below, with the majority falling between ages 24-27. This stat isn't biased towards superstars, it's all inclusive.

Again, physiologically, your overall fitness peaks between ages 23-27. Most records/personal bests are set between these ages. That's what I'm arguing. Obviously the drop off isn't going to be sudden, so outliers will exist due to other factors, ie, experience, league variable scoring rates, teammates, coaching systems, etc.

Injuries are part of it though, you wear down as you age. It's a bit skewed due to the increase in scoring the past couple of years but most career years happen when a player is younger. Kucherov, Crosby, the list goes on. Those guys score the most when they are in their mid 20's when you hit your late 20's the impact of players drops steadily. This is why LA was good a while back and not now, they are old and broken down and slow.

So your stat means 32 isn't including in most players prime years? Might was to re-evaluate that one.

It comes with the sport. Players of all ages get injuries especially bad ones. Gabe Vilardi is a clear example of that.

So your whole opinion is based solely on the King's great

No. I pay attention to all 31 teams if you can't tell by my profile and GM teams...

I'm using those guys as examples since you seem to know so much about them.

Players age and playing past 30 in this day and age is becoming extremely rare. Why? because its a young mans game. You can pine for the good old days all you want but there are heaps of evidence that players decline in their 30's. A players prime is around 23-30 and anytime after that the decline starts setting in. A lot of top guys that are still producing very well, are seeing a huge portion of their points come on the PP and their 5v5 stats are dropping. Mainly because its difficult to keep up once you start losing a step.

Most of this has to do with the physical growth of human males. A human male will be at his physical peak around 24 and then keep close to that level until he pushes 30 and then they start declining. This is the same reason why you don't see many sprinters in their 30's, because they can't keep up. Its the same in hockey, eventually they start falling back and while their experience and talent can keep them playing at a higher level a bit longer, they do have trouble keeping up with younger faster players, which is why you get more injuries and other nagging things with older players.

Players don't exit there prime till 32. Look around you.