Confirmed with Link: Avs acquire D Devon Toews from NYI for 2021 2nd and 2022 2nd

[LostInMosEisley]

I think the Avs are pretty clearly choosing to be ok with everyone walking at the end of the term of their contracts (Burky, Graves, Nuke, etc) and Toews will prob fit in that same equation which is why I think he’s going to go medium term ~3 years.

Avs hate term under normal circumstances, now more than ever they have reason to avoid it entirely.

Girard is core in their minds since the only players in Sakic’s tenure to get 7 years has been Landeskog and MacKinnon.

EJ also got 7 years. The AAV's have generally been cap friendly. It didn't work out so well with EJ but great with Landy and Mack, and hopefully great with Girard. A modified NTC kicks in the last three years so regardless of if he views Girard as core, I think Sakic was keeping the potential of having to trade him in mind.

 

[MarkT]

I'd rather go 1 year than 7 for Toews (or 2 than 6, or 3 than 5, etc..). We have literally no idea how he'll actually fit in our system and with our players. It's conceivable he ends up anywhere from the top pair to the bottom pair. I'd rather risk losing him after a short term deal than give big term to an unknown quantity. If Toews is pushing hard for term I'd go as long as 4, but otherwise I'd probably just go to arbitration and see what happens. If he fits in we can always go for a long-term extension mid-season.

 

[LostInMosEisley]

I'd rather go 1 year than 7 for Toews (or 2 than 6, or 3 than 5, etc..). We have literally no idea how he'll actually fit in our system and with our players. It's conceivable he ends up anywhere from the top pair to the bottom pair. I'd rather risk losing him after a short term deal than give big term to an unknown quantity. If Toews is pushing hard for term I'd go as long as 4, but otherwise I'd probably just go to arbitration and see what happens. If he fits in we can always go for a long-term extension mid-season.

I believe one year would take him to UFA status. Trading two 2nds for the guy is probably a tell they view him more than a rental. From the Avs perspective they definitely want some term with Toews, but Toews himself may be looking at a bridge deal to get to his UFA contract sooner.

 

[MarkT]

I believe one year would take him to UFA status. Trading two 2nds for the guy is probably a tell they view him more than a rental. From the Avs perspective they definitely want some term with Toews, but Toews himself may be looking at a bridge deal to get to his UFA contract sooner.

I know 1 year is straight to UFA, but if he pulls a Josh Anderson and it's either 7 or 1 I'd go for 1 and then try to extend him if he's a good fit.

 

[LostInMosEisley]

I know 1 year is straight to UFA, but if he pulls a Josh Anderson and it's either 7 or 1 I'd go for 1 and then try to extend him if he's a good fit.

Josh Anderson has some injury concerns and that's probably the reason he had that 1 year or 7 ultimatum. If Toews did something similar I think the Avs should put together 7 year deals they'd be comfortable with (Girard's contract is the obvious comparable). Very possible, even likely, in the negotiations they would not find something that Toews would find is worth sacrificing UFA years while still being a cap friendly deal. As far as his fit, it's not that big a mystery. The Avs have had success identifying players who would be a good fit before they played with the team, whether you're talking about Kadri, Burakovsky, Nichushkin, etc. It's pretty clear they see something similar with Toews.

If I had to guess what will happen I'm guessing they'll compromise on a 2-4 year deal. I'm mainly arguing that from the Avs perspective, they ideally want to get him on a good contract with term.

 

[MarkT]

Josh Anderson has some injury concerns and that's probably the reason he had that 1 year or 7 ultimatum. If Toews did something similar I think the Avs should put together 7 year deals they'd be comfortable with (Girard's contract is the obvious comparable). Very possible, even likely, in the negotiations they would not find something that Toews would find is worth sacrificing UFA years while still being a cap friendly deal. As far as his fit, it's not that big a mystery. The Avs have had success identifying players who would be a good fit before they played with the team, whether you're talking about Kadri, Burakovsky, Nichushkin, etc. It's pretty clear they see something similar with Toews.

If I had to guess what will happen I'm guessing they'll compromise on a 2-4 year deal. I'm mainly arguing that from the Avs perspective, they ideally want to get him on a good contract with term.

The Avs only committed to 1 year with Bura and Nichushkin, and Kadri for 3 seasons. And in the case of Kadri he had a long, proven track record. Yes they identified the fit well for all three, but that doesn't make them infallible, and it's worth noting than none of those 3 are defensemen. They also identified Connauton and Rosen, remember.
Giving 7 years to a guy he has never played on your team and has just over 100 games of NHL experience? That would be terrible roster management in my opinion. That's how you end up with albatross contracts. So unless Toews is willing to take a well below market value AAV then there's no way I'd give him 7, 6 or even 5 years. 4 would even be a stretch for me.

 

[LostInMosEisley]

The Avs only committed to 1 year with Bura and Nichushkin, and Kadri for 3 seasons. And in the case of Kadri he had a long, proven track record. Yes they identified the fit well for all three, but that doesn't make them infallible, and it's worth noting than none of those 3 are defensemen. They also identified Connauton and Rosen, remember.
Giving 7 years to a guy he has never played on your team and has just over 100 games of NHL experience? That would be terrible roster management in my opinion. That's how you end up with albatross contracts. So unless Toews is willing to take a well below market value AAV then there's no way I'd give him 7, 6 or even 5 years. 4 would even be a stretch for me.

1 year with Bura and Nichushkin led them to another RFA situation. 1 year with Toews takes them to UFA. That is a huge distinction. Kadri was already under contract so there wasn't really a decision to make other than taking the contract, which was a fairly easy decision. Connauton and Rosen were depth defensemen, I mean neither was on the opening night roster and they probably weren't expected to be when they were acquired. It's obviously a different situation and expectation with Toews.

It's always a balancing act to find the right mix of risk and reward with these contracts, but Toews isn't a mysterious prospect. A team friendly AAV has been central to the argument I'm making. Toews is a potentially extremely valuable asset and intentionally going short term would largely be wasting the long term value of it.

 

[MarkT]

1 year with Bura and Nichushkin led them to another RFA situation. 1 year with Toews takes them to UFA. That is a huge distinction. Kadri was already under contract so there wasn't really a decision to make other than taking the contract, which was a fairly easy decision. Connauton and Rosen were depth defensemen, I mean neither was on the opening night roster and they probably weren't expected to be when they were acquired. It's obviously a different situation and expectation with Toews.

It's always a balancing act to find the right mix of risk and reward with these contracts, but Toews isn't a mysterious prospect. A team friendly AAV has been central to the argument I'm making. Toews is a potentially extremely valuable asset and intentionally going short term would largely be wasting the long term value of it.

Well if it's a team friendly contact then it doesn't really matter, but I see no reason to assume Toews will sign a team friendly contract. When I think about what term I'd want for a player, I'm assuming they'd be signing at the market rate for whatever level of player they currently are (in this case 2nd pair defenseman).

Also, you're the one who brought up Bura, Kadri and Nichushkin, not me. And for Bura and Nuke, just because they were RFAs doesn't remove the risk. They could easily have made unreasonable contract demands or gone to arbitration to get to UFA status. My point is yes the Avs identified good fits with those players, but in all three cases they were also acceptable risks because they weren't stuck with any of them long-term. Toews on a long-term contract would be a much greater risk. Oh, and you can't dismiss Connauton and Rosen as example of poor talent evaluation and include Nuke as an example of good talent evaluation. All three were acquired as depth pieces. One worked out and the other two didn't if Rosen or Connauton had turned into good players for us, you'd be trotting them out now as example of how the Avs are good at evaluating fit. Maybe it's a coincidence that those two are defensemen, and maybe not. Maybe it's just harder to figure out in advance if a defenseman is going to fit with your system and mesh well with your roster. Heck, even just fitting in with the dressing room can be a factor.

Look, obviously a 1 year deal wouldn't be ideal. But I prefer the risk of him walking after 1 year to the risk of having a player signed to a long-term deal who isn't a good fit. There's a reason that free agency is such a crap-shoot. You never know until the player is actually on the team whether they will be worth the contract you gave them.

 

[Pokecheque]

If he takes a bridge deal I'm perfectly fine with that. Do what it takes to win within the current window, worry about locking down the core players like Girard, Makar, Rantanen, etc.

 

[LostInMosEisley]

Well if it's a team friendly contact then it doesn't really matter, but I see no reason to assume Toews will sign a team friendly contract. When I think about what term I'd want for a player, I'm assuming they'd be signing at the market rate for whatever level of player they currently are (in this case 2nd pair defenseman).

Also, you're the one who brought up Bura, Kadri and Nichushkin, not me. And for Bura and Nuke, just because they were RFAs doesn't remove the risk. They could easily have made unreasonable contract demands or gone to arbitration to get to UFA status. My point is yes the Avs identified good fits with those players, but in all three cases they were also acceptable risks because they weren't stuck with any of them long-term. Toews on a long-term contract would be a much greater risk. Oh, and you can't dismiss Connauton and Rosen as example of poor talent evaluation and include Nuke as an example of good talent evaluation. All three were acquired as depth pieces. One worked out and the other two didn't if Rosen or Connauton had turned into good players for us, you'd be trotting them out now as example of how the Avs are good at evaluating fit. Maybe it's a coincidence that those two are defensemen, and maybe not. Maybe it's just harder to figure out in advance if a defenseman is going to fit with your system and mesh well with your roster. Heck, even just fitting in with the dressing room can be a factor.

Look, obviously a 1 year deal wouldn't be ideal. But I prefer the risk of him walking after 1 year to the risk of having a player signed to a long-term deal who isn't a good fit. There's a reason that free agency is such a crap-shoot. You never know until the player is actually on the team whether they will be worth the contract you gave them.

I've simply been arguing what the Avs should be looking for to make the most of this acquisition. I've already said several times Toews may not be interested (who knows what he wants really, none of us are privy to the conversations between himself, his agent and the Avs).

I brought up Bura Kadri and Nichushkin because you were bringing up the question of fit. Those three players were acquired with the expectation they'd be on the roster (yes it took time for Nichushkin to get in the rotation, but obviously the Avs scouting saw something in him that many outside observers didn't. They are using the same eyes to evaluate Toews). If you think the Avs should balk at even offering Toews a team friendly deal with term, then we can agree to disagree. I'm not arguing for signing him to an obvious albatross of a contract and disagree that any long term deal carries an unacceptable risk of becoming an albatross. The Avs have offered 4 year deals to players they have not seen on their team before, so I don't think they feel like they need to see how a player fits on the team before offering term.

There's always going to be some disagreement about how a player is valued. Fans will have different opinion than the team, but ultimately the team's evaluation is going to be the relevant ones. I think the indications are that the Avs value Toews highly, probably higher than they valued Burokovsky, Nichushkin, and Donskoi. We'll see what kind of contract they can agree on, but I expect Sakic wants long term value with Toews if he can get it.

 

[tigervixxxen]

I’d be surprised if they only get a one year term.

 

[MarkT]

I've simply been arguing what the Avs should be looking for to make the most of this acquisition. I've already said several times Toews may not be interested (who knows what he wants really, none of us are privy to the conversations between himself, his agent and the Avs).

I brought up Bura Kadri and Nichushkin because you were bringing up the question of fit. Those three players were acquired with the expectation they'd be on the roster (yes it took time for Nichushkin to get in the rotation, but obviously the Avs scouting saw something in him that many outside observers didn't. They are using the same eyes to evaluate Toews). If you think the Avs should balk at even offering Toews a team friendly deal with term, then we can agree to disagree. I'm not arguing for signing him to an obvious albatross of a contract and disagree that any long term deal carries an unacceptable risk of becoming an albatross. The Avs have offered 4 year deals to players they have not seen on their team before, so I don't think they feel like they need to see how a player fits on the team before offering term.

There's always going to be some disagreement about how a player is valued. Fans will have different opinion than the team, but ultimately the team's evaluation is going to be the relevant ones. I think the indications are that the Avs value Toews highly, probably higher than they valued Burokovsky, Nichushkin, and Donskoi. We'll see what kind of contract they can agree on, but I expect Sakic wants long term value with Toews if he can get it.

They were using those same eyes you're talking about to evaluate Connauton and Rosen. The Avs are not infallible talent evaluators.

And I probably wouldn't want the Avs to offer Toews a long term (5-7 years) deal at a rate I'd be comfortable with, because Toews would probably find it insulting.
4 years is probably the max I'd be comfortable with at the rate he's likely to demand, and yes the Avs have given deals like that. Well, one deal. But if you're talking about Donskoi, we're talking about a player who has almost 300 NHL games under his belt. Also, is Donskoi the poster-child for being a perfect fit with the Avs?

Who else have they given term to without first testing them out? Cole was 3 years. Bellemare was 2. Calvert was 3. Kadri is 3. And all four of them had extensive NHL track records. Who have they offered long-term deals to? And I mean in the Sakic era.

 

[LostInMosEisley]

They were using those same eyes you're talking about to evaluation Connauton and Rosen. The Avs are not infallible talent evaluators.

And I probably wouldn't want the Avs to offer Toews a long term (5-7 years) deal at a rate I'd be comfortable with, because Toews would probably find it insulting.
4 years is probably the max I'd be comfortable with at the rate he's likely to demand, and yes the Avs have given deals like that. Well, one deal. But if you're talking about Donskoi, we're talking about a player who has almost 300 NHL games under his belt. Also, is Donskoi the poster-child for being a perfect fit with the Avs?

Who else have they given term to without first testing them out? Cole was 3 years. Bellemare was 2. Calvert was 3. Kadri is 3. And all four of them had extensive NHL track records. Who have they offered long-term deals to? And I mean in the Sakic era.

Look, if you think the Avs value Toews the same as Connauton and Rosen, that may be why we're arguing in circles. Donskoi got 4 years, they reportedly offered Panarin 4 years (at double Mackinnon's AAV, so that's why they wouldn't go longer... Toews is no where in that ballpark). Again I'm pretty sure they value Toews more than you seem to think they do, but we'll see...

 

[Pokecheque]

They were using those same eyes you're talking about to evaluation Connauton and Rosen. The Avs are not infallible talent evaluators.

And I probably wouldn't want the Avs to offer Toews a long term (5-7 years) deal at a rate I'd be comfortable with, because Toews would probably find it insulting.
4 years is probably the max I'd be comfortable with at the rate he's likely to demand, and yes the Avs have given deals like that. Well, one deal. But if you're talking about Donskoi, we're talking about a player who has almost 300 NHL games under his belt. Also, is Donskoi the poster-child for being a perfect fit with the Avs?

Who else have they given term to without first testing them out? Cole was 3 years. Bellemare was 2. Calvert was 3. Kadri is 3. And all four of them had extensive NHL track records. Who have they offered long-term deals to? And I mean in the Sakic era.

Maybe I'm misreading here but I really don't understand why we even need to focus on two throw-in defensemen who really didn't factor into the team's plans. I know there was some buzz and anticipation surrounding Rosen but I never got the impression he was ever anything more than an extra body for the Avs. Clearly the Leafs valued him a lot more since they traded to get him back. As far as Connauton...meh. After the Connor McDavid massacre game they pretty much gave up on that guy. That trade was just a salary dump anyway, the fact they got anything at all in return is gravy, even if it's five-day-old gravy from the local deli. Neither of those players are indictments of the Avs' scouting staff. If that's the point you're trying to make, there are far better examples.

 

[MarkT]

Look, if you think the Avs value Toews the same as Connauton and Rosen, that may be why we're arguing in circles.

What are you talking about? I never said anything remotely like that.

I'll try again.

• You are claiming that the Avs are good at evaluating whether a player will be a good fit with the team.
• You are using Kadri, Bura and Nichushkin as examples of this because they were all good fits with the team.
• I'm using Connauton and Rosen as counter examples because they were not good fits with the team.
• Connauton and Rosen were similar tiers of acquisitions to Nichushkin based on their age and salary. None of the three were expected to be key pieces when they were acquired.
• The Avs are thus not infallible evaluators of fit. They sometimes make mistakes. Two of their recent mistakes have been defensemen.

Nowhere in that argument am I claiming that the Avs value Toews the same as Connauton and Rosen.

 

[Cousin Eddie]

Today feels like an announcement Friday.

 

[Pokecheque]

Today feels like an announcement Friday.

The Ball Arena is Blue with anticipation...

 

[MarkT]

Donskoi got 4 years, they reportedly offered Panarin 4 years (at double Mackinnon's AAV, so that's why they wouldn't go longer... Toews is no where in that ballpark). Again I'm pretty sure they value Toews more than you seem to think they do, but we'll see...

So your evidence to back up the claim that "I don't think they feel like they need to see how a player fits on the team before offering term." is that the Avs have offered two players (one of whom is a legit MVP candidate) 4 year contracts?

Heck, I'm pretty sure I know exactly how much the Avs value Toews. It's two 2nd round picks. They obviously think he's a pretty good player. That doesn't mean that they are so certain he'll be a good fit with the team that they're going to offer him a 5+ year contract. It does mean they probably want to sign him for more than 1 year, which is why I think 2-4 years is both most likely and the best option.

Maybe I'm misreading here but I really don't understand why we even need to focus on two throw-in defensemen who really didn't factor into the team's plans. I know there was some buzz and anticipation surrounding Rosen but I never got the impression he was ever anything more than an extra body for the Avs. Clearly the Leafs valued him a lot more since they traded to get him back. As far as Connauton...meh. After the Connor McDavid massacre game they pretty much gave up on that guy. That trade was just a salary dump anyway, the fact they got anything at all in return is gravy, even if it's five-day-old gravy from the local deli. Neither of those players are indictments of the Avs' scouting staff. If that's the point you're trying to make, there are far better examples.

I only brought them up because an argument was being made that "The Avs have had success identifying players who would be a good fit before they played with the team". I'm using them as counter examples to show that the Avs have had both successes and failures. The successes obviously outweigh the failures, but their record isn't perfect.

 

[LostInMosEisley]

• You are claiming that the Avs are good at evaluating whether a player will be a good fit with the team.
• You are using Kadri, Bura and Nichushkin as examples of this because they were all good fits with the team.
• I'm using Connauton and Rosen as counter examples because they were not good fits with the team.
• Connauton and Rosen were similar tiers of acquisitions to Nichushkin based on their age and salary. None of the three were expected to be key pieces when they were acquired.
• The Avs are thus not infallible evaluators of fit. They sometimes make mistakes. Two of their recent mistakes have been defensemen.

Nowhere in that argument am I claiming that the Avs value Toews the same as Connauton and Rosen.

• Yes, are you disagreeing that the Avs are good at evaluating whether a players will be a good fit with the team?
  
• Yes.
  
• Connauton and Rosen were depth acquisitions. Rosen was an AHL player in a deal with Kadri as the main piece. Connauton had one year left on a deal where they were essentially dumping Soderberg for picks and he was waived before the season even started. Do you have any evidence that suggests the Avs thought of them as more than that? You're comparing their acquisition to the Toews acquisition to suggest they make evaluation mistakes (they can make mistakes, but these are not a good example as there's nothing to indicate the Avs felt similarly about these players.). Toews is the main piece in the Toews acquisition. It's not the same thing as Connauton and Rosen.
  
• Nichushkin may have been a pleasant surprise, but that doesn't make it not an example of the Avs ability to evaluate players. It's a sterling example in fact because they saw something that almost no one else did. It's not quite the same as Connauton or Rosen because I don't think they ever planned on Nichushkin to be an AHL player (and he wasn't a throw in on the acquisition). Worst case scenario he was a 13th roster forward.
  
• No they are not infallibe. But they also can't be so afraid of making mistakes that they're scared of getting the most value out of a player like Toews. Connauton and Rosen are not examples of mistakes. They were low risk low reward depth acquisitions of little consequence.

So your evidence to back up the claim that "I don't think they feel like they need to see how a player fits on the team before offering term." is that the Avs have offered two players (one of whom is a legit MVP candidate) 4 year contracts?

Heck, I'm pretty sure I know exactly how much the Avs value Toews. It's two 2nd round picks. They obviously think he's a pretty good player. That doesn't mean that they are so certain he'll be a good fit with the team that they're going to offer him a 5+ year contract. It does mean they probably want to sign him for more than 1 year, which is why I think 2-4 years is both most likely and the best option.



I only brought them up because an argument was being made that "The Avs have had success identifying players who would be a good fit before they played with the team". I'm using them as counter examples to show that the Avs have had both successes and failures. The successes obviously outweigh the failures, but their record isn't perfect.

Yes, a four year deal is evidence that they don't need to see a player on the team before making a commitment. If you find that incredulous, whatever.

Anything less than 3 years on the Toews deal and they are likely not going to be wasting some of his potential as an asset. Most likely scenario is Toews walks as a UFA after the contract. I agree that 2-4 years is likely. 2 would be disappointing. 1 would be a total failure. 3-4 years would be an acceptable compromise. Just been laying out the case why getting him on a certain type of contract would maximize his value. At this point I'd rather agree to disagree than keep arguing just for the sake of arguing, which is all that is happening at this point.

 

[S E P H]

I'm probably the outlier... I want term. 5-6-7 years. This a real opportunity to get another Girard like contract that is a bargain in future seasons. Even if he gets pushed down the depth chart in 2-3 seasons, having Toews with ~3-4 years left and being a good top 4 defensemen, he'll have great value on the trade market. It would cost more, likely in the mid to high 4s, but a 6 year deal would be ideal to me.

Likewise, but I think Sakic will play it safe since it seems like he's beyond scared of signing players past two to three years.

 

[S E P H]

If he takes a bridge deal I'm perfectly fine with that. Do what it takes to win within the current window, worry about locking down the core players like Girard, Makar, Rantanen, etc.

Disagree, I rather not get into another O'Reilly situation where Toews can realistically put up more points in our system than Islanders maximum security prison gameplan from Trotz/Islanders, thus requiring major reward.

 

[Pokecheque]

Disagree, I rather not get into another O'Reilly situation where Toews can realistically put up more points in our system than Islanders maximum security prison gameplan from Trotz/Islanders, thus requiring major reward.

Why is that a negative? If he blows the doors off the competition then that means the Avs benefit from his good play, and he benefits by getting a lucrative long-term deal. Worst case scenario, they flip him for assets when his value is at an all-time high and that team deals with the eventual decline he has once he approaches his thirties.

The Avs are going to lose good players--that's a consequence of the cap. I'd rather they not do what the Hawks did and continually shed good young talent because they went overboard and signed too many veterans to lucrative long-term deals. If Byram does indeed pan out, then I'd rather the Avs secure him, Girard, and Makar than Toews. I'm not sure you can realistically lock down all four players like that on the back end and also keep the talent stocked up front and in goal as well.

 

[S E P H]

Why is that a negative? If he blows the doors off the competition then that means the Avs benefit from his good play, and he benefits by getting a lucrative long-term deal. Worst case scenario, they flip him for assets when his value is at an all-time high and that team deals with the eventual decline he has once he approaches his thirties.

It's a negative because you have to put your position in the role of Sakic and what he's done to this point. We've made trades, but majority of them have been draft picks for players and he's been quite cautious which players he's targetted (low term). I want Toews to be become a very good defenceman for us, that's why I rather pay him a lot now to a long-term deal instead of him pricing himself out of our cap structure like O'Reilly deservedly so. We didn't have faith in ROR and got screwed because he demanded like twice as much as the following season, lets not make the same mistake and have Toews become a 6.5 million dollar defenceman when we could've had him at like 5.2 for five years the previous season.

 

[Pokecheque]

It's a negative because you have to put your position in the role of Sakic and what he's done to this point. We've made trades, but majority of them have been draft picks for players and he's been quite cautious which players he's targetted (low term). I want Toews to be become a very good defenceman for us, that's why I rather pay him a lot now to a long-term deal instead of him pricing himself out of our cap structure like O'Reilly deservedly so. We didn't have faith in ROR and got screwed because he demanded like twice as much as the following season, lets not make the same mistake and have Toews become a 6.5 million dollar defenceman when we could've had him at like 5.2 for five years the previous season.

I'm not so sure the situations are as comparable as you make them. Either way, I'm not going to be too worried if he signs for relatively short term. If he plays amazingly well within the current window, that only benefits the Avs.

Also, I don't want to get into coulda/woulda/shoulda with O'Reilly but it had absolutely nothing to do with "faith."

 

[S E P H]

I'm not so sure the situations are as comparable as you make them. Either way, I'm not going to be too worried if he signs for relatively short term. If he plays amazingly well within the current window, that only benefits the Avs.

Also, I don't want to get into coulda/woulda/shoulda with O'Reilly but it had absolutely nothing to do with "faith."

It did have everything to do with faith because Sakic or someone from the organisation came out and told the press right when he signed before they went to arbitration that "we have no problem giving what he wants, but we want to see a bit more to earn that". Then next season he performs even better and demanded more.

I think they are comparable not because Toews is wanting 6 million or trying to price himself out as of now, but because Sakic is already feeling the pressure from Makar and Landeskog to try and limit his costs as much as possible. A way to limit those costs is to have more trust in a player and pay him for a long-term deal than get potentially screwed. Just look at how we were able to get MacKinnon for pennies? Because Sakic and Co. had trust in him to rebound.