- Thread starter
- #1
I personally do not like it
It's the 6 yrs that worries me ala LeCavalier/MacDonald/Umberger deals that we're stuck with.
I'm sure if he was offered 4.3-4.6 over 3 years he would have taken it IMO.
Couts contract is MUCH different than those other three guys - those three guys are on the downside or past the prime of their careers - Couts has only been in the league for four years now and that contract of his will be right in his prime years so that's when they'll be getting the best of him
I look at it this way-They're taking a chance that he'll improve.
I'm not saying he won't,but I would be a lot happier with giving him 3 years,and if he pans out,then another 3 year or more,depending on his performance.
If he doesn't work out after the 3 years,that saves them 12.9 mil,to use on someone else.
Yep totally agree very pleased!I like 6 years at that number. Like Cobie said, it's a little different with Coots because he's so young. You're only risking 4.3 mil against the cap, which isn't huge. And there's at least a viable chance he turns in to a player worthy of 5-6-7 mil in just 2-3 years. Then you have him locked it at 4, for 3-4 more years after that. The gamble is low enough risk and high enough reward that I like the contract.
If you sign him for 3 years at that number, and he increases his offensive output, there's a chance he breaks the bank at that time. Here, he's manageable. In 3 years is when I would be hesitant to give him a long term deal because at that point he will probably be at his max earning potential so the risk is much higher.
Couts contract is MUCH different than those other three guys - those three guys are on the downside or past the prime of their careers - Couts has only been in the league for four years now and that contract of his will be right in his prime years so that's when they'll be getting the best of him