Picked this up mid-January and it's been rattling around since: a report that Ben Chiarot signed a three-year extension. Want to flag clearly this is SINGLE SOURCE, medium confidence, not something I've seen widely confirmed, so file it under rumor for now.
If true, it's a polarizing one. Three more years committed to a physical, defense-first depth guy who's already in the back half of his prime. The on-paper value of his minutes vs the term is exactly the kind of contract that ages rough. I'm a systems guy and I'll say it: he's useful in a specific role and a problem if you're paying him to be more than that.
Anyone seen this confirmed anywhere more solid?
If accurate, the underlying numbers do not love a three-year term here. He gets caved on shot share in any minutes above sheltered, and the foot speed is what it is. As a third-pair physical presence on a short deal, defensible. Three years is the part that raises an eyebrow. But again, single source. I wouldn't get worked up over a report we can't pin down yet.
Three years of any 30-something depth D is a future LTIR conversation waiting to happen. If the AAV's low enough it's survivable, if it's not it's an albatross by year two. Until somebody real confirms it I'm not putting it in my cap sheet though. Plenty of January 'reports' evaporate.
I'll defend the player a touch. He blocks shots, he clears the front of the net, and he lets a partner take more risk. The issue was never that he exists, it's deployment. Run him 14 minutes against bottom sixes and he's fine. The minute he's matched up he's exposed. So the contract question is really a coaching question about how honest you are about his role.
Mod note, keep it civil on the player himself, this is a contract debate not a pile-on. That said, on the merits: I'd rather see those three years and dollars pointed at extending the young core than locking in depth. If the report holds, it's a fine-but-not-thrilling commitment. Big if on the report.