...I think here's been some misinformation here for the past couple of years (I repeated it myself) Jensen isn't out of options next year - he has 2 years, doesn't he?
No, this is his last year of exemption. His first contract was for the 13-14 season. He was 23 or 22, depending on which date it's based off, but it doesn't matter since either way he got 3 years of exemption. This will be his third and final year.
I think people fail to see the point here.
The one year deal is in the organizations favor.
Pulkinnen hasn't had a full NHL season yet. Chances of him playing superstar status and putting up a ton of points are low.
He might put up okay numbers. But most likely he won't see the minutes nor put up the numbers that Nyquist did on the top line with Zetterberg or Tatar with Datsyuk.
Ergo when his contract is up next year; the organization can basically get him back for a decent deal if they want.
If he ends up sucking like a lot of posters here predict; we don't need to pay some crazy amount
This is his year to prove it.
I think he will do decent but not good enough to warrant a crazy new contract. He's simply not NHL developed quite yet.
If it was a two year contract I could see him doing much better in the second season of his contract and then asking for a hefty pay. But with a 1 year contract, it doesn't necessarily favor him.
Could go either way. He could have a Jurco-ish season, and not have any leverage to ask for much of a raise, and probably push for another one-year "show me" deal, or he could have a 20g/40p year like Tatar in his first, and ask for $2.5-3M.
Considering we're likely to be in cap trouble next year regardless, I would have rather seen a 2-year deal even at a little higher hit. Best case scenario we get an extra cheap year out of him if he doesn't do well this year, but that's not worth the risk of the extra trouble next summer. Plus I don't really like the idea of "best case" meaning a player doesn't do well.
- krsmith17 likes this