SENATOR, you need to drop the +/- usage. Your posts are still wildly entertaining but this makes it way too obvious that it is a parody. It reduces the efficiency.
Difference of opinion I guess. Like I said, if we have to deal guys because they won't re-sign here, so be it. Enforce the internal signing deadline and get as much trade value as soon as we can't reach an early deal. There's a risk of losing players that way, for sure, but there's also a risk to going long on term. So pick your poison, but given our budget a bad contract or two is enough to sink us. So I'd take my chances on the shorter deals (but try not to walk them straight out to UFA). For Bath, I might aim for a 2-3 year deal followed by a 3-4 year deal. It might cost more than this six year deal, but we're paying a premium for the added certainty, which is safer.
Like DrEasy said, you can't do that in a market like Ottawa as we are far from a favorite destination. UFAs will walk away more often than not. Even if you know in advance you won't be able to retain them, you will trade them from a position of weakness as pure rentals on expiring deals.
Basically, this is going the "Mark Stone way" on the regular. A recipe for disaster in a market like Ottawa.
What would be much smarter is going the Batherson way, try to have the player for the entirety of his 20's. Then try to extend the player if he is still healthy and going (and not pricing himself out of town I guess)
Perfect deal,think it will be 6 years for Brady as well ...5 to 6 great years then another rebuild...Thinking this is the new normal for teams under the cap
Nah... Look at Boston, Penguins, Tampa... etc
There's a norm for teams that know what they are doing AND have the possibility to spend money and then there's the rest.
If you're doing it right, you can contend for 10+ years.