Hi ImHFNYR
Registered User
To the first sentence... yes? You don't want to give a long term contract to someone unless you think they're going to continue to develop and play up to what that long term contract is going to be worth. Goes without saying.The thing here is that you have to identify who to bridge and who to commit to long term. If you mess that up, you end up with a scenario like Brady Skjei.
I don't think Chytil has done enough to warrant long-term commitment.
What chytil has done is more than enough, for me, in combination with his talent and production so far, to justify the long term raise if the organization had more than a thimbles worth of long term planning ability.
The lesson to learn from skjei is that young guys with a ton of potential and a hint of talent, who are locked up for cheap, can still get you a 1st bc of how tantalizing their potential is and bc they're so far from the end of their prime. The lesson should not be to be afraid of committing to young guys while throwing more than half a decade at nearly 30 year old guys.
Brady skjei was a good scenario. A guy you could keep for decent money or trade for a valuable bit of draft capital.
Brady skjei didn't have the potential or talent chytil does. I felt the same about buch.
Last edited: