Its because we are not in a position to overpay for 'certainty' if you can even call it that in Lafferty's case.
We need to find a Lafferty before he breaks out.
Also. Laff or Lane Pederson or Kuz (to a lesser extent) producing on EP40s wing should by now come with a massive asterix.
I don’t recall saying that we should overpay him. In fact, I just said that I hope he signs a reasonable contract in exchange for long term stability. What that number is going to be is up for debate and depends on how the rest of the season goes.
I think good teams should pay to retain players who prove to be a good fit with their system rather than trying to save a few nickels here and there by bringing in a new player like the Leafs did when they jettisoned Laff to sign Noah Gregor at a cap savings of what, 400K? I’ll bet they would happily reverse that if they could.
Sure, finding the next Lafferty is great in theory (and this management group has a good track record of bringing in guys who are able to contribute) but there are no guarantees that these will always work out and finding a guy who’s can do all that Lafferty can do is a big ask.
I get what you’re saying about the Pettersson effect, as of now you definitely want to pay Lafferty mainly based on his bottom six work as opposed to his scoring bump playing with a top player but if he continues to produce there then that’s another tool in his toolbox that will need to be adjusted for.
It’s not like it’s a bad problem to have when a player thrives in an expanded role except when you have too many inefficient contracts too make it work when it’s time to re-sign them. I think this management group is smart enough to keep space available for a player like Lafferty.