- Jul 28, 2011
- 15,101
- 9,877
It's not even just "paying a guy based on hope that he can improve". Foligno was still signed for a year and they gave him 3 more year. It was real easy to wait and see if it was an outlier or not. beyond that, it was real easy to give 2 years instead of 3. I'm not going to pretend I know if Foligno would have taken that or not, but it just felt unnecessary at this time.He's played 9 NHL seasons. Has never had 15 goals. Has scored 10 or more in only 3 seasons. Has never had more than 25 points in any season. Paying a guy based on the hope that he can improve on his one outlier season seems like a bad idea to me.
I don't think this is big enough to bite them in a few years, but again, just felt unnecessary.