I just don't understand it. The bonuses sure, as that makes him harder to buy out down the road and is guaranteed money. But you could still structure it like we did with JJ (which was smart) so that it pays a lot of money up front, and makes him easier to trade down the line because he's owed less dollars. AND the players usually like this because it means more money in their pockets sooner (which has all sorts of advantages). So to do that is a win/win for both parties. And to not do it on a contract this long with a depth guy that is more likely to be moved at some point then not, just seems very short sighted.
I mean something like: 5m, 5m, 3.5m, 2.5m, 2.5mm 2.5m (21m) still gives him the same amount of money, but it would be easier to trade him after year 3 with only 7.5m in cash being owed then the 10.5m his current contract pays him after yr 3. Like I said... it's a little thing... but it's little things like this that can make your life a lot easier down the line. And while we as fans only really care about the cap hits, GMs have real budgets that they have to adhere to, and thus the dollars do matter to some clubs.
People talk about unforced errors... contract length aside, not front loading this contract was an unforced error. If you're going to give Tanev a 6 yr deal, you front load the hell out of it as a way to hedge down the line if you need to move him.
