That's assuming Matthews signed when his current deal runs out. I think that's a crazy something to just expect to happen, and ignores why it is so risky to give him 5 years. You walked an elite player right to UFA while making him the 2nd highest paid player in the league. That's a joke.
I think its a very risky premise to defend the deal.
You can't justify the deal on that premise. That is the significant risk attached to only buying one UFA year.
The deal can't be justified by saying. Well, we will sign him one to a more team friendly deal next time and two, that he should be expected to stay. He signed for 5 years that walks him right to UFA, to automatically expect the next team deal to one be more favorable, and two for him to stay is just foolish. Those shouldn't be justifications for this deal. We made him the 2nd highest paid player in the league and bought one UFA year. Marner for 12.5X8 is a better deal, because atleast you are buying 3 years that are supposed to be the most expensive. But, because one deal is theoretical, and the other one has been already signed, people will defend the already signed deal to the death.
Because those are historically what you pay a premium for. Its why Matthews got the best deal in the league for a first time RFA.
and risked losing a more valuable asset 3 years earlier than the players they are going to retrain. All the RFA negotiations have been terribly handled. Justification that he will re-sign in 5 years to a better deal is just a flimsy management defending argument. Its the same stuff you heard about Marner being a local kid and he won't be like Nylander, and will take a team friendly deal, and now are willing to let him go because of his demands. When a year ago this was an unthinkable proposition because RFA's don't usually move on.
Because someone mentioned that we will get more team friendly terms on Matthews 3rd deal, which I thought was a ridiculous premise given how this negotiation went.
