doesn’t even have to be 6 years. we could’ve given him a 4 year deal and I believe he’d still be a RFA.Wanted longer years. We give 6 to goodrow, we can't take a risk on locking someone up for lower salary in their prime instead of their prime retirement home years?
doesn’t even have to be 6 years. we could’ve given him a 4 year deal and I believe he’d still be a RFA.
then 3 years. no reason to keep it at 2 years. get as much RFA time as you can.4 would lead him right into UFA I think.
then 3 years. no reason to keep it at 2 years. get as much RFA time as you can.
yupI really wanted more term. These bridges NYR love so much with their forwards have bit them many times.
the player has a say in it too. maybe he wanted 2 years. why would he lock in more years at the same rate if he thinks his value will go up?
Wanted longer years. We give 6 to goodrow, we can't take a risk on locking someone up for lower salary in their prime instead of their prime retirement home years?
Why do we LOVE risking the old guys won't fall off (they ALWAYS do) but we refuse to risk signing a young guy bc we're worried he might not develop further?
Bridge of course