Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,140
- 13,101
It is bad asset management to put yourself in a position where you are forced to move assets because of the salary cap. Extending Gunnarsson would do that when we have extensions to Shattenkirk and Parayko just around the corner. Tying up that money next season would also limit our ability to improve our offense.
If Shattenkirk is signing an extension, then we can expect Parayko to replace Gunnarsson on the left side.
I disagree with your premise. Moving an asset for a discount is better than letting him walk for nothing. So long as the asset is on a good contract, we wouldn't have to pay a team to take him off of our hands. There would be plenty of buyers for Gunnar at $3.3 mil. He is a legitimate 2nd pairing D man, which costs much more than that in UFA. Over half the league needs D, so that contract would be easy to move.
I see where you are coming from about tying up cap next year, but re-signing Gunnar shouldn't make any difference in extending Shatty or Parayko. Parayko will get extended without question. If the Blues think Shatty is worth the money, they will give it to him and move Gunnar. If not, they will let him walk.