mrdannyg
Friday, December 4th, 2009, 4:25 AM
QUOTE (MapleLeafpoker @ Thursday, December 3rd, 2009, 5:37 PM)

Im always suprised when people dont get the obvious upside to a long term deal.
Yes, Keith might break his leg and never play as well again.
Yes, Keith might not be as good as MOST think he is.
But then again, if he is this good, imagine how underpaid he probably will be when he is 30yrs old, and still a stud D.
And the good thing is, Chicago will have him locked up without having to concern themselves over him leaving.
Add the fact that there is inflation, that in spite of Bettman hockey will grow+prosper, and that this also takes Keith out of all his UFA years....then its a great deal for Chicago.
ps- The cap will be higher next year, and the year after, and the year after that.
Hell, I love long-term deals. Professional athlete salaries are pretty inflationary. There is absolutely zero evidence to support it, but I do feel like hockey salaries are at least close to peaking, unless the sport starts gaining popularity in the States.
Keith is 26. An 8 year deal takes him through his prime years, at a reasonable and manageable cap hit. Sure, he might suck, but I doubt we can find many guys as good as Keith who have started to suck between the ages of 27-31.
So why 13 years? Unless Keith's camp would only accept a deal like that, and not something 6-8 years long, then I think there is a mistake.
Unless Keith is Blake, Bourque or Niedermayer, they will be overpaying him by the end of his contract. That's all I'm saying. I'm normally a big fan of these long-term deals, for several reasons. I can't wait for the Leafs to lock Kessel up to a 15-year deal