glen a richter wrote:
reminds me of a Yogi Berra-ism
a tad more than I thought he would get, but this was before David Clarkson got $7 million per in perpetuity
if a 1 year deal is a "prove it" and a multi year deal is a commitment, what is a 2 year deal?
Seriously though, I think it's exactly how it looks, somewhere in between prove yourself and a total commitment. 4 mil is about what I expected. If he gives 100%, 100% of the time, it'll be a bargain. If he's like last season, it'll be an ok deal. If he's like the season before last, aye dios mio.
If he gives 100%, 100% of the time, I'll be wondering which alien species abducted him and what they did with the real Chris Stewart.
Chris Stewart gave 100% for a good chunk of last season...and then just went completely quiet. That's the thing with him and I don't understand it. I remember in several games early on, he was skating with a purpose, up and down the ice, every shift. And then much like his M.O., he started taking shifts off, his goal scoring went quiet, and yet he still led our team in scoring. My fear is that one of the last times we gave out a 4 mil a year contract to a streaky forward (Boyes), it didn't go so well. Luckily, this is only a 2 year deal compared to a 4 year deal like we did to Boyes.
I've said it time and again, the Blues are one of the smarter teams in the league in terms of contracts, at least since Army took over. This seems to be a prove it plus one deal. They believe in Stewart's skill, but also acknowledge his shortcomings. If he plays this contract out to the highest of his ability, then he is going to get PAID (and probably not by the Blues). I mean, friggin' David Clarkson landed a 7 mil per deal and his numbers are actually worse than Stew's. If he continues to be streaky, then the Blues might be able to trade him in the second year of the deal.