Dude's missed what like 6 games in the last 6 years? His health has been great and the dude just turned 28.
Was hoping we could shave it down to 6 years, but I'm good with it. He's 34 in the final year of the deal, don't see how that's ancient. Should be good for the first 5 years, might slow down in the final 2.
7 years, 42 Million for Lucic!?!
How will you pay McDavid, Draisitle, Puljujarvi in three to four years!?!
Same plan he ran in Boston.
2 years too much. His game doesn't age that well.
7 years, 42 Million for Lucic!?!
How will you pay McDavid, Draisitle, Puljujarvi in three to four years!?!
I'd rather have Lucic & Larsson.
Dude's missed what like 6 games in the last 6 years? His health has been great and the dude just turned 28.
Money is perfect imo, term is two years too long, but you do what you have to do to get your guy I guess, and the world economy can change a lot in 3/4 a decade...
7 years....? Have fun with that.
3 years too much. Would have went 4 years max on this player for that term.
So before this topic reaches several pages and even threads like the Hall trade, I'd like to challenge those coming in this thread who like to post ten words or less to try and answer a question while they're here:
Is Edmonton with Lucic and Larsson a better team than solely Hall? If they're worse, why?
If you choose not to take up that question and insist on the drive-bys, we'll know what your motivation really is (and it's not to have an honest discussion).