Good Opinion Haver
Rejoint: juin 2018
Messages: 1,837
Mentions "j'aime": 939
I do agree with your take on the team (that they're likely not going to be a contender for 3 years, and so why bother really). But I think there could be more follow through on the direction to set up that future contention window.
If they're not going to be a contender for three years, why waste a retention slot to dump Krug for basically nothing when his contract will be up in three years anyway (with his trade clause reducing in one year), while keeping Parayko's contract (years 34-37 of which would be running through the "new" contention window) instead of trying to trade him instead? I think he's played pretty well but the upside is that he's the SAME player in three years. He's not going to be a better player. He'll probably be a worse one. Why should a non-contending team take that risk? Keep Krug (or Faulk) instead and peacefully move on in three years, while maybe someone gives you something actually useful now in order to take on the last 6 years of that Parayko deal at full freight.
If they're going to sell assets with term, the assets that make sense to sell are a) players who are good and/or b) players whose remaining term is prohibitive for the long term future of this team. To me that describes Buchnevich/Parayko/Binnington/maybe Faulk. I'm not really worried about moving Leddy/Krug/Schenn/Saad. Most of both groups will have to turn over sooner than later, as we'll need the roster spaces, but as far as maximizing value while not handcuffing the future goes, I think the first group should be the priority on moving out.