Eh, I don't think anyone doesn't "understand" that. It's that they look at a guy whose only real NHL sample to date is 25 games of .907 play but includes 2 significant injuries and would rather ride out this year on his existing deal and make him show us that he can play 40-50 games and be good in them.
Let him have a good year and demand more money. As a RFA there's only so much demanding he was going to be able to do.
The two most recent arby awards for goalies were Samsonov and Swayman. Samsonov was coming off of a .919 in 42 games, with ~150 career games played and got awarded 1 x 3.55 million. Swayman coming off of a .916 got 1 x 3.45
Gustavsson was coming off of a .93fucking1 season and avoided arby by signing a 3/11.25....which sounds like what we've just jumped to with Woll, without actually making him play his way into it.
Fwiw, Gustavsson is a good cautionary tale as well. Instead of just taking the 1 yr arby award that would have been somewhere around 1 x 3.65 or so, they locked him in for 3 years and he sucked in the 1st yr of the deal. He would be signing a cheap 1 yr show me deal right now instead of being locked in for 2 more at 3.75
If you're dealing with an unknown commodity and you have time/RFA years, use them. It's one thing if the guy has a track record of a few solid years in a row (Swayman, for example). But a goalie giving you a really good 30-40 games just isn't a reason to throw term at them.