Jump to content
  • Join us — it's free!

    We are the premiere internet community for New York Rangers news and fan discussion. Don't wait — join the forum today!

IGNORED

Devils Re-Sign Jack Hughes to 8-Year/$64M Extension; $8M AAV


josh

Recommended Posts

  • Phil changed the title to Devils Re-Sign Jack Hughes to 8-Year/$64M Extension; $8M AAV

Is this…..

….is this a joke?

He has accomplished NOTHING in this league. Nothing. Zilch. Nada.

How about actually seeing if he lives up to the hype before buying it? It’s not as if he was going anywhere.

What a disastrous franchise. Good grief.

Players like Crosby, Kane, etc had to actually perform before they got paid. This kid gets a bit payday based off of…what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This might be the dumbest contract I have ever seen in this league. And I’m not kidding.

I’m not questioning what Hughes can become. I’d sound like a hypocrite. I was all on board the Lose For Hughes train a few years back leading up to his draft.

I thought he’d be much better by now than he is. He has done nothing. Neither has someone like Kakko. That doesn’t mean I don’t believe in either. I do think both will be fine. But you don’t pay these types of contracts based off belief; you need some substance. There has been none yet.

This is absolute lunacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a pretty smart bet. They need him to stay, and excel. If either of those don't pan out, they're fucked anyways.

Could very well be the best contract in hockey in 2 or 3 years, and if he's a 50 point player, it's a slight overpay.

I think he's fantastic, and has shown more than either of our high picks.

  • VINNY! 1
  • Applause 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dunny said:

I think it's a pretty smart bet. They need him to stay, and excel. If either of those don't pan out, they're fucked anyways.

Could very well be the best contract in hockey in 2 or 3 years, and if he's a 50 point player, it's a slight overpay.

I think he's fantastic, and has shown more than either of our high picks.

He has?

Year 1: Hughes played 61 games and scored 7 goals and 14 assists. Kakko scored 10 goals and 13 assists in 63 games.

Year 2: Hughes scored 11 goals and 20 assists in 56 games. Kakko had 9 goals and 8 assists in 48 games.

Is that really showing much more? Enough to warrant $8 Million per year? Because I sure as hell don’t think it is, strictly based off what he has done thus far.

I’m not saying this won’t potentially look brilliant eventually. But to roll the dice like this when you really don’t have to? Fitzgerald is rolling the dice big time here, because if this kid doesn’t get his shit together and now produce the way his contract dictates he should, he’s in deep shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Dunny said:

I think it's a pretty smart bet. They need him to stay, and excel. If either of those don't pan out, they're fucked anyways.

Could very well be the best contract in hockey in 2 or 3 years, and if he's a 50 point player, it's a slight overpay.

I think he's fantastic, and has shown more than either of our high picks.

Hughes is obviously a world talent. $8M is a bargain if he stays healthy 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, RichieNextel305 said:

He has?

Year 1: Hughes played 61 games and scored 7 goals and 14 assists. Kakko scored 10 goals and 13 assists in 63 games.

Year 2: Hughes scored 11 goals and 20 assists in 56 games. Kakko had 9 goals and 8 assists in 48 games.

Is that really showing much more? Enough to warrant $8 Million per year? Because I sure as hell don’t think it is, strictly based off what he has done thus far.

I’m not saying this won’t potentially look brilliant eventually. But to roll the dice like this when you really don’t have to? Fitzgerald is rolling the dice big time here, because if this kid doesn’t get his shit together and now produce the way his contract dictates he should, he’s in deep shit.

I said he's shown more, not necessarily produced.

As Simon said, there's a world talent, there, but it's a gamble that could back fire, for sure.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

these deals suck, because they set a precedent where winning the 1oa draft pick no longer worth while. Sure, you may luck into a mcdavid, draisaitl, or similar all time great, but the past few drafts, these players have been nothing special. Now that we're paying them 8m just for their draft pedigree, the reward is null, since no matter what the player does, it appears you have to pay them a ridiculous amount of money, and it's not like you can let them walk. 

Maybe we'll start to see some of these guys get traded early. Before, there was no tradeoff because you wouldn't just give a player 8m a year because he looked like he might be good one day. Now? Totally different. I'd gladly be trading Laf or Kakko and his next 8M contract for a player worth his weight at 5 or 6M. Easily. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This league is treading some dangerous waters when GMs are paying primarily for talent above anything else to this extent. I get that the trend for a prime has changed to be younger that previous generations in the game but there has to be some actual accomplishments mixed in to validate this money. When Gms make these idiotic decisions, they affect the entire league going forward. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Pete said:

Whatever anyone feels the risk is, or not, they simply didn't have to give him this kind of deal, today.

In reality sure, but with negotiations it now sets a precedent for other players that will have to be addressed. The only person with a magic pen here appears to be Lou lam 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Valriera said:

In reality sure, but with negotiations it now sets a precedent for other players that will have to be addressed. The only person with a magic pen here appears to be Lou lam 

I don't understand this post, I'm not talking about what any other team is doing, I'm saying the Devil didn't have to give him this deal today.

And any GM worth his job is going to tell an agent "just because of Mickey mouse organization does something doesn't mean we're going to".

I would 100% trade KK before giving him that kind of deal this year. And it's not even close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...