cdanew wrote:Jason wrote:It means they'd extend him later on. It wouldn't be an requirement in the trade before it happened. Like what Nill did with Spezza.
I understand the theory, but my point is you can't be giving someone like Heiskanen for what could very well be a one-year rental of EK. If, and my personal view is that it would be a HUGE if, you agreed to give up Heiskanen, it would be the height of stupidity to not have EK locked up.
Under no circumstance should Nill part with Heiskanen without a guaranteed extension in place.