UWSaint wrote:While there is some risk to signing players to a long term deal, this has been the trend under the structure of the current CBA -- a structure that I doubt will be overhauled in this round of negotiations.
Yeah I found it odd to hear people complain about the term on Garrisons deal.
When a guy is 27 does it really matter if his deal is 4 or 6 years ?
This isn't a deal taking him to 38 or 39, it's one taking him to 33, an age which most defensemen are still very effective.
The main risk in any deal like this is that the player either doesn't fit in or their play tails off because there isn't the same amount of urgency anymore. I don't think term beyond 3 years matter much for those problems especially if term is given to reduce the yearly cap hit.
If a guy does fit in and their effort doesn't tail off then you probably want the longer contract because as you pointed out, an effective defenseman will be drastically underpaid by the end of a long term contract.