I'm not sure if being a Cup contender is relevant.
You're not sure if being a cup contender is relevant to the kinds of signings a team should be making? That's... an interesting take on building a team.
I mean for one thing we should be aiming to be a Cup contender in 3 years, whether it's likely or not. And Krug will only be 32 then.
Sorry to quote snipe, but I think there are different issues, here. I think it's a massive, massive mistake to approach UFA like you're a cup contender, when you're coming off one of the worst seasons in franchise history, and everything you have is, realistically, sill a big fat maybe. This isn't a team, for instance, that should be signing depth guys as the final pieces and pushing guys like Zadina and Hronek into minimal minutes, like you'd do if you were, say, Tampa.
And 32 is old. How many players are still playing at 32 the way they played at 29?
Secondly the Cup isn't the only goal. Krug will be on the ice with whatever young people we're putting our stock in. If he's helping them win games, he's helping them grow as players.
Will he be doing that for 7 years, or whatever terms is required to sign him? I'm all in if he wants to come for a 3 year deal, and a possible extension if he ages well. All in. And, I'd expect, a lot of other folks would be, too.
But a third pair Krug with 3 years left on his deal at $7-8m is the kind of player that will prevent the team from winning if he doesn't age well. I think this goes back to the contending argument - if you're a team with almost all the pieces in place, then potentially screwing yourself next year to win a cup this year is 100% reasonable. If you're a team with no pieces in place (yet), then gambling on a player beating the aging odds so you can be a little less bad now seems like a poor trade off.