tbh I wish we got both
We can just buy the last two years out at like a 1.5 million cap hit. While that isn't ideal....it isn't exactly sky is falling scenario either lol might as well just enjoy the good years and deal with the drop off when it comes.
He would be 3.83m, 3.83m, 333k, 333k over 4 years if we bought him out with 2 years remaining. Can't really buy him out to save money.
They are in the context of the current team. If they win one or two Cups during the first four years of this deal, do you think anyone will care about having to lose a second round pick to trade the last two years of Tanev's contract if it comes to that? I get that you are pre-disposed to trying to find fault with Treliving, and in some cases there are legitimate reasons to take that position, but not when it comes to Tanev's contract relative to his impact on the team.
I'm not the one pre-disposed to anything. I call it like it is, and I've complimented Treliving on things that warrant it. My position on giving significant money and term to players through their late 30s and 40s has not changed. The issue isn't even Tanev. But the 6 years through age 40 is an issue, and it is absolutely relevant. We can't buy him out for savings. You can't just randomly assume that we're not only going to win 2 cups in the next 4 years, but that we're going to win 2 cups in 4 years specifically because we signed Tanev for 6 years (and that also somehow makes everything else irrelevant). You can't assume that you can just dump him and his full NMC at your preferred cost at your preferred time, and that's still a cost anyway. No matter if you think the consequences are worth it, and no matter what potential scenario you dream up, it doesn't change that the term is relevant.
Once he starts to drop off though, it could be a steep drop. We'll see what happens, fingers crossed.
True enough. The core is nearing the end of it's prime so it might be time to go all in next couple of years anyway. 1.5 doesn't sound too bad I guess, is that just the last two years? Just wondering what happens if he's terrible 3 years from now?
I am not assume the wins, but I think it is completely fair to assume that the contract can be removed at a reasonable price, because that is what almost every strong team has consistently done over the years. Good teams get rid of bad contracts. It happens all the time, and it's almost never for an extraordinary cost. (except, you know, Patrick Marleau).
I think the difference is that they didn't conclude that Brodie was struggling until into the last year of his deal, at which point the cost/benefit analysis likely warranted keeping him as depth. With Tanev, I expect that after three or four years they will make a decision on him if his play significantly drops off. If his play doesn't drop off, then he will become defensive depth under a far larger cap.
Brodie and Marleau both turned out to be big issues for us. You can shrug off the possible downside if you like, but Tanev being under contract until he's 40 obviously comes with a fair bit of risk attached.
Good teams tend not to sign players to significant money and term through late 30s/40s in the first place, because they know better. But no, moving deficit value contracts has not always been cheap or possible. Especially for late 30s players with NMCs. We should know that more than anybody. You are making so many assumptions about things you have no idea about, and you being willing to accept your most ideal version of consequences still does not make the term irrelevant.
I think in the grand scheme of things the risk will be fairly low by the time it becomes an issue. The real risk isn't the term, it's the possibility of significant injury, which is heightened for older players.
oh I completely forgot
By the time it becomes an issue, we'll be talking about not risk, but impact.
Also definitely a guy I would do some load management with. The Leafs don't need to him to play a full season. It would be good to rest him every once in a while.
