Because if you do that for every deal all of the sudden your millions more with cap usage and then Chevy doesn't have flexibility. The deal in isolation wouldn't be bad but then you're setting a bad precedent.
I think every deal is different - which goes without saying.
But some are harder than others depending on the money and the player.
I thought this one would be easier.
How they approach each deal is a factor IMO - do we need to grind this one out for the sake of what might be minimal $'s?
Or do we need to treat them all the same and grind them all? IMO, they are not all the same.
KC was used as an example in a few posts - but I see that one coming during a much harder crunch with the Laine deal happening at the same time - they were juggling some serious money on both those contracts - and KC's was done immediately after the smoke cleared after Laine signing.
We don't really know what is on the table right now - lots of speculation. My post was more about the "what if" scenario where this is heading for a bridge.
The bridge is the fall back if there is concern with either party on a longer deal - so why grind the bridge when it's so short and relatively cheap.
If part of this is about ensuring everyone is treated the same, I'd argue that they are not the same in that some contracts would have settled longer term already - especially top 6 contracts with players that according to some, are no brainer top 6 players.
This one just smells funny to me - purely an opinion that this is not as simple as "all chevy deals are a grind" and they need to be all treated the same.
I'll also agree that your points and others, are valid - I'm just looking under the details a bit and wondering if it was / is necessary to drag this one out for the sake of negotiation consistency. Spit balling so to speak - conversation purposes only.