biturbo19
Registered User
- Jul 13, 2010
- 26,416
- 11,508
Hronek is 26 going on 27 for pretty much the entirety of next season. He's not some young, developing player. All but the most extreme of outlier very late bloomers more or less "are what they are" by that point.
Expecting "improvement" toward an even higher peak at that age is generally foolhardy. Especially if you're factoring that projected continuing growth into his contract...where "paying for potential" is often how you make big mistakes in the first place, but especially if you're doing it on a more or less UFA-aged player. More likely, Hronek has ~4 years of "prime age" play at a similar level to what we got last season, before he starts to drop-off. And that's without injury factors, that have been a bit of an issue with him.
I mean, that's probably true. I wouldn't want to go more than 2 years with Tanev, even 3 is really pushing it. But i also don't see why he wouldn't be at least a short-term solution. Or at least...part of the solution. He's still playing at a reasonably high level and he plays the type of cerebral, not really toolsy-dependent game that can end up aging pretty gracefully.
Obviously would just be a bridge to other parts of the solution, and complemented by other acquisitions. But i don't see why they should cross him off out of consideration just because he's probably only got a few years left.
The problem with this kind of incremental reasoning, is that...where does it end? Where is the line in the sand? If you think Hronek is say...a $6M defenceman where you'd be okay stretching to the Low $7M range because of the risks of the alternative...you're already reaching beyond what is really comfortable to pay. So another $750k on top of that or more if he presses for his $8M starts to become more like a $1.75-$2M stretch to his perceived "value".
And philosophically in terms of cap management...it sets a new precedent to have him eclipse Hughes deal. It's the sort of thing that the Leafs allowed to happen with their "big 4"...and it just makes it more difficult to stop the climb and field the rest of a roster when you let certain players drive their own pricetag up because "it's just $750k here and there", and suddenly you're penny pinching a few hundred thousand here, half a million there, etc. on all the rest of your players filling out the roster.
That's not great, when the quality depth of this roster was an enormous factor in taking that huge step forward this season.
I think there's a tendency to see it as a bit of a one-way benefit...and you're right, Hughes did benefit from playing with Hronek in some ways as well. His ability to also move the puck helped take some pressure off Hughes at times. But how much of it goes each way is very much debatable.
It's also a bit of a false dichotomy here. It doesn't have to be "Hronek" or assorted "Poverty Dmen" with Hughes. There are milder, more intermediate options potentially out there. I think the cost and feasibility of those other options plays a big part in how "desperate" you need to be with Hronek's demands. Plenty of other names have been tossed around...of varying viability levels.
I also think attributing all of the team success this season to Hronek playing with Hughes is really overstating the case, and massively downplaying so many of the other critical things that went just right for them with the rest of the roster, coaching, etc.
