The dollar value is fine, it's not like the Canucks could offer him less.RoyalDude wrote:So. The hillbilly/INbred translation of ^^^Hatfield and McCcoy's^^^ opinion(s) regarding the Gudbranson signing? A good signing? Lack of hillbilly hissy fitting on their part must mean they like it.
But it's also a great move for Gudbranson, who can now cash in as a UFA next summer at 26.
If he has a good start to the year, it'll cost north of 5 to lock him up. If he has a bad start, we won't want to and his trade value plummets as a rental.
The one year deal is definitely better than signing him long-term for big money, but losing him for nothing makes that trade significantly worse than it already appears to be. Not a great situation for the Canucks to be in, with a player who hasn't lived up to his trade value yet and may walk for nothing after 100ish games.