Quoting: jnowariak
So let’s drop LAK from the equation. Why does it matter if MIN signs him long term to trade him as opposed to having another team negotiate the same long term deal? The end result is a player locked up for term. And from a market stand point, if a team only wants him for 1 year then that will be reflected in what the team would offer. Much the same a team that wants him long term will reflect that value in a trade offer. I think Fiala is a great fit for LAK, NJD, and OTT. All of which have the cap and desire to sign him to term. That will make a team’s offer to sign him for one year moot. If there isn’t a market for Fiala, then that’s another story but I don’t believe that’s the case.
So let's say that Minnesota grants LA permission to speak with Fiala's agent (which would be required for them to negotiate a deal prior to a trade). What's to prevent LA from telling Fiala to accept his qualifying offer with the Wild, and LA will be waiting next summer with a lucrative multi-year deal? I don't see why Minnesota would be inclined to grant permission for teams to negotiate prior to a trade for that reason.
So now you're stuck trading for an uncontracted Fiala that you have to negotiate with, and who might ultimately decide that he'd like to go to arbitration or simply accept his QO and become a UFA the following summer. What if his contract demands are unreasonable. The team trading for his rights would have no way to know that until he was acquired, or they would be guilty of player tampering. There's a lot of risk here taking on a player without a signed contract. So yes, Fiala signed has a lot more value than Fiala unsigned.
RazWild a aimé ceci.
Répondre
Rossi,
CapFriendly
CapFriendly