Dr Robot
Registered User
- Nov 3, 2011
- 1,631
- 1,377
I mean, what if he scores like 60 points next season? This is just an awful contract.
if your hypothetical is true, yes, awful. If he scores 100 though, it'll be a pretty okay contract.I mean, what if he scores like 60 points next season? This is just an awful contract.
That’s ridiculous.
1 sub PPG season in the NHL and you get 9 million per year with term that takes you right to UFA?
What if he scores 90?
if your hypothetical is true, yes, awful. If he scores 100 though, it'll be a pretty okay contract.
Seems pretty fair given what Rantanen got.
Why keep him then? Trade him for assets that will be good when you're relevant againEven if this ends up being a bad contract, who cares? It ends in five years, we're not going to be relevant for those five years anyway. There's very little actual practical risk in this deal.
Come on guys... Let's be realistic he isn't sniffing those numbers. He shot at 17% for 55 games. Of those 55 games, 32 of them were against Anaheim, SJ, Arizona, and LA.
This is a terrible deal that is going to backfire hard.
This dude is a machine. He is one of those superstars who brings people to watch him. Would love to have him on my team.
??
Rantanen had 2 80+ point seasons under his belt, one where he had lead the league in scoring for the first 50 games...
lol I don't want to hear 1 more word about Marner. 5 years, 9 million for a guy with a half a season of games. Unreal.
This is surely the weirdest way to maybe/maybe not announce a contract signing