We already have another one. Girgs was playing the exact same role at the start of the season, and he did goal prevention wise better job with lesser linemates (Moulson and Gionta who played worse hockey than he has in our current third line). And I'm NOT saying there is somekind of choice between the two of them...
As it has been pointed out, Bolland played as a second-line center having toughest match-ups. And he also scored 47 points on regular season and 12 points in 17 playoff games before his 2nd contract...
Dave Bolland is extremely poor comparable here.
Now. After his ELC Krüger got two years bridge worth of 1,325 million and after that one year bridge worth of 1,5 millions. After that he got his coming three year deal worth of 3 millions including two UFA years. And after every contract Krüger's value became higher because he was more proven, established and had more integral role. You can calculate his average cap hit from his six years after ELC. And after that I recommend to think the proper value for Larsson after his first full season.
Yeah, for example that Larsson never becomes even close the player Krüger is.
I'm not undervaluing his role. I'm just saying that you don't overpay for a player because of his role. There is a reason why guys like Vlasic and Hjalmarsson are getting paid like they are. Defensive acumen doesn't deserve that much money nonetheless that being an important role. And you absolutely don't pay that kind of money to a guy having four RFA years ahead of him (him having little leverage).
And you believe that Larsson will significantly increase his value? Turn out to be significantly better than Krüger?
I think it's pretty clear that Larsson is not going to play as a winger anymore. And he is not going to be a top-6 center.
Let's say he has this role as a second highest QoC center (behind ROR/Reinhart) and having significant amount of d-zone starts. Krüger, for example, is having less than 20 % o-zone-start and is having that kind of role. And Larsson most likely will have pretty much no PP time. That means even more troubles for scoring. It's pipedreaming that Larsson will score significantly higher numbers from that same role than Krüger.
Krüger is established, he has already a winning pedigree - in a western team. He has shown to be effective with different linemates on a yearly basis. He has shown to be successful in playoffs. None of that applies to Larsson.
This talk about giving Larsson 8 year deal is ridiculous and absurd. Just take a look at the players that have gotten max term contracts. They're all franchise (or at least close) players. They're not elite on their role - they're elite on their position.
I'm all for giving Larsson time to establish himself and keep developing. Giving him opportunity to prove that he is able to be an effective shutdown center with different players on a regular basis. He hasn't shown that yet. After his ELC Krüger got bridge deals and got better... And his value never exploded. The possibility of getting 500k cap savings just isn't worth the risk of paying above Krüger money to a player who is not on that level. Let him prove himself, and lock him long-term after that. In his perceived role, he is not going to explode offensively.
If Larsson ends up being equivalent to Krüger, we all should celebrate like a mad man.
You're talking about this 8 year deal here?
And I do remember the talk about Hodgson as well... Great value for a player who confidently will be high level performer..
It's just doesn't always go like that. That's the reason you see only rarely players having those max term deals. And the reason is not that players don't want them...
When did pro season started to matter regarding UFA-status? It has always been about accrued seasons. It's about having 7 accrued seasons or becoming 27 on the season before the season entering UFA. Larsson is July born, which gives him one "extra" year compared to the guys born on June and before that. I'm more than happy to be corrected by dotcommunism or someone else with the knowledge.
)
