I just posted an opinion. I've actually acknowledged all the counter points that make sense. I'm sure Canucks management has had similar conversations internally.
I like that we've established a pretty good case for one or the other. I made a case for my preference and you guys did for yours.
It's obviously up for debate/discussion, but I don't think there's anything wrong with having a strong preference for one side or the other. I may not have posted all the downsides to going long term but I 100% considered the 3 main concerns.
1) Player becomes UFA sooner since a bridge deal allows for another negotiation while the player is still a RFA
2) Player may not continue to improve, thus meaning the contract could be a long term overpay and not save any future dollars
3) Precedent set for future RFA's on team(arguably a good thing if Horvat's deal is strong value).
I still prefer the upside of going long term now
- Nucker101
and a few days (week?) ago, i mentioned that i'd rather a long term deal. even if he's over paid in 3 years, the cap will have gone up to make up for it. worst case, he'll be a slightly over paid 3LC.
however, i could see projections that value a 2 year bridge + 8 year deal better than a long term deal right away.
