Disagree. IMHO 10 pts = 1 million. If you score 35 pts you should be paid about 3.5. If you can get 50 you should get 5 and so on. 4.45 for a 40 point player is decent, as I said maybe .5 overpaid. Playoffs and the chance for him to get an extra 5 points a year make up for that. Now its not a steal or discount like Stammer, but its a net value deal.
We will just have to agree to disagree there.
And these long contracts are starting to become the norm.
That comment is quite an embellishment. How many 15 goal/40 point forwards over the age of 25 have gotten a 7 year deal? This isn't a former top 10 pick who is 23 or 24. We are talking about a guy about to turn 27 who is probably the player he is at this point and at most will improve a little bit. Players like that do not get 7 year terms. Shaw is the closest comparison and he only got 6 years and just because Bergevin did something stupid doesn't justify Yzerman doing the same thing.
I am all for bridge deals, heck I think the NHL should of stuck to their guns and kept the 5 year max but as this summer has shown players want the long term security.
That is exactly why there have been TWO lockouts this century and another is likely on the way. Again, just because owners get carried away and give out stupid contracts doesn't make it smart for others to do the same. We have seen plenty of responsible contracts handed out this summer to restricted free agents such as Filip Forsberg, Kyle Palmieri, and Jaden Schwartz.
MTL just signed Shaw to a 6 year 3.9 deal. Killorn and Shaw aren't to different that is the going rate for these 40 pt players.
Like I said, that was a dumb move when Bergevin did it and it doesn't make it any less dumb for Yzerman to have done this deal. People will have their preferences and can squabble over the details but when you look at age, production, and intangibles Shaw and Killorn are extremely comparable players. Shaw's deal was bad, Killorn's is even worse.
well for the last 3 anyways
