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.
Parise/Lou question
Started by sweDevil, Jun 28 2011 07:48 AM
2 replies to this topic
#2
The Facepainter
-
- Members
-
- 657 posts
Senior Devil
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.
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.
#3
Devilsfan118
-
- Members
-
- 4,680 posts
General Manager
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.
-This is Team-
Anyone who says, ‘You played in that New York area,’ I say, ‘No, I played in New Jersey.’ - Ken Daneyko
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
