Jump to content


Parise/Lou question

  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

#1 sweDevil


    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 970 posts

Posted 28 June 2011 - 07:48 AM

Hi just wondering why Lou felt it was wiser to apply for a one year arbitration instead of 2. His value in a trade seems bigger with a 2year contract. And why risk losing him after one year? Havnt heard anything about the negotiations for a couple of days any news would be good.
  • 0

#2 The Facepainter

The Facepainter

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 657 posts

Posted 28 June 2011 - 08:03 AM

If it does go to arbitration, Devils don't have a choice but to go through arbitration for a 1 year contract. I'm not sure, but I think it has something to do with how many years Parise has been under contract. Weber is the other scenario, but like I said, not sure why.

Also they're willing to risk going to arbitration, so other teams can't give Parise an offersheet that the Devils would have to match to keep him.

Edited by The Facepainter, 28 June 2011 - 08:06 AM.

  • 0

#3 Devilsfan118


    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,982 posts

Posted 28 June 2011 - 08:06 AM

I think it has something to do with how many RFA years the player has left. This is zach's last year of RFA eligibility, so the longest contract Lou could theoretically request is a 1 year deal leading to his UFA year.
  • 0


Rutgers:  The Birthplace of College Football

First B1G Season: 8-5

Second B1G Season: Forgettable

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users