I'm not going to convince you of what you've already made your mind up about it... but because you're pushing me on it, I'll answer what my thought process is - not to argue with you, but to answer the question without copping out of the discussion.
I didn't say I think he'd be killing it by then, that's coming from you. To answer your question of who is still doing it at that age or there abouts - JMoz and Bmoz (til his leg went) were still doing it, I'd love to have Fergo here for a couple of years through to 33, and many others have in the past - both recent and distant. Granted, the bog average and shit ones typically don't, plenty or most rep ones tend to though. Gagai, to this day, has actually gotten better with age... and i mean honestly, I just don't agree with the framing of the discussion you're kinda forcing on it tbh, and that's my main point. I don't think that 33 is a magic number for outside backs that means they've got nothing to offer just because there's not a lot running around in the NRL at this moment. It's purely case by case, much like any other player in any other position. This is what I mean when I said I don't think it's a given.
Now I mean, if you've got an argument that is - I don't think Gagai specifically will offer us enough at 33 because of x, y or z then I think that's a fair enough discussion to have, for sure. I might not agree still, who knows, but I just don't really agree with an arbitrary line in the sand - and I don't think Gagai is going to go so far off a cliff that it'll be a contract that murders us as a club - especially at this price. There's risk involved in any contract, and I mean what you say could happen, I just don't agree with you on the level of risk based on what I perceive to be an arbitrary number is all. It's not like it isn't being done now and hasn't been done countless times in the past - but you're talking like it's some unprecedented contract through to 40 years of age or something.
So yeah, he might not be at his peak in another 3 years, but I'd bet on him to still be holding his first grade spot down - and at a higher quality than we have access to at the moment. I think there's other fringe benefits in that we do need a player like him around the young outside backs, it keeps Mann further away from the starting team... these things have value to us too. Will he be worth the same in 2024 as he is now? Probably not, but I don't think it's going to be so dramatic that it's not worth getting him here. That's my thought process to the moment, and it's cool if you don't agree - I'm not trying to be argumentative - just answering you in good faith. I'd much prefer to have him for 3 years than not have him for 2 - as long as the salary is tolerable - and for me this is tolerable.