Carbo's contract extended

[fromage]

I actually don't have much of a problem with those deals. Over the second half of that contract (and even some of the first half), he'd be very underpaid. Kostitsyn has the potential to be worth 7+ million dollars one day. These long-term deals are becoming the future of the cap era - it's the only way to afford and sustain a team full of good, young players. Ten years might be a bit too much, but 5-8 year deals on 24 year olds with no history of injuries is a pretty safe gamble.

Thank god if Wall St. ever thought you like, and some other GMs in the NHL did, we'd have a huge financial crisis affecting the entire world. Oh wait.

[Tony]

Signing anyone more than 5 years is crazy. If a player is that dedicated to staying with a franchise, he'll have no problem signing a contract extension after 5 years.

Getting a guy to sign longterm now just because you can get him at a bargain rate in the future is still risky because a) market value constantly fluctuates and b) the player in question is human, he's bound to be a victim or some wear and tear.

All it takes is a couple of UFAs to set a trend about getting reasonable contracts and you just changed some of the league's market value. Regardless, the NHL's economics will change when the new CBA gets worked out. I have a funny feeling that the salary cap won't be linked to league revenues anymore. The league needs a stable cap since I don't think many GMs who signed guys to crazy longterm deals planned out some strategy for the year the cap takes a significant hit.

[saskhab]

The whole thing with those 8+ year deals is that the last 3 years or so the player only makes a couple million. Most of the actual value of the contract is in the first 5-6 years (of an 8 year deal).

It essentially works as a 5 year contract, that you have negotiated a cheaper cap hit for by adding the extra 3 years. If the cap hit is too excessive for the value of the player by the end, the team can buy out the remaining years on the contract for 2/3 of whatever the player hasn't been paid yet.

For example, this is how Danny Briere's contract 8 years, $52m ($6.5m cap hit) breaks out in actual salary each year:

2007-08: $10m

2008-09: $8m

2009-10: $8m

2010-11: $7m

2011-12: $7m

2012-13: $7m

2013-14: $3m

2004-15: $2m

If the contract looks bad after year 6 (2012-13), the team can buy out the remaining 2 years, $5m of his contract. The cap hit drops from $6.5m per year in those two years to $1m for the first two years and $667,000 for 2 more years after that. Or, Briere could retire, knowing he's collected $47m of the $52m he signed for and Philly doesn't have any cap hit to worry about.

[HABBER-oooooKNOWS]

Signing anyone more than 5 years is crazy. If a player is that dedicated to staying with a franchise, he'll have no problem signing a contract extension after 5 years.

Getting a guy to sign longterm now just because you can get him at a bargain rate in the future is still risky because a) market value constantly fluctuates and b) the player in question is human, he's bound to be a victim or some wear and tear.

All it takes is a couple of UFAs to set a trend about getting reasonable contracts and you just changed some of the league's market value. Regardless, the NHL's economics will change when the new CBA gets worked out. I have a funny feeling that the salary cap won't be linked to league revenues anymore. The league needs a stable cap since I don't think many GMs who signed guys to crazy longterm deals planned out some strategy for the year the cap takes a significant hit.

I think so to. Anything more then 5 yrs is crazy, so much can happen to an athlete within one season. Not just injury, but bad play, attitude, confidence, because of all the variables that is why a player wants as much security as possible should his talent slide early. Their careers are so short to begin with.

A stable cap would solve the inflated contracts we keep seeing. GM's are spending as though the cap will continue to rise and rise. It's all part of the process at the end o the day. They need to stretch out too far so they can rein in something reasonable. Luckily Gainey still has it under control, but then again we haven't had to sign an Ovechkin yet. I'm happy with the 3 yr window Gainey has been using, that's a great evaluation period, it will be interesting what he does with Komi since he is the first player we've had in a while that seems deserving of a longer contract.

[Habsfan]

it will be interesting what he does with Komi since he is the first player we've had in a while that seems deserving of a longer contract.

GIve him 30 million$ over 6 years! He's worth it!

[saskhab]

I thought Markov for 4 years was a tad short, but still reasonable. I probably would've liked 6 years. Ditto for Komi. Plekanec I'd consider for around 5 years as well.

[Habsfan]

I thought Markov for 4 years was a tad short, but still reasonable. I probably would've liked 6 years. Ditto for Komi. Plekanec I'd consider for around 5 years as well.

Plekanec has improved by leaps and bounds every year he's been with the habs. If he can get a 70-75 point season this year, I think it'd be safe to offer him a 4 or 5 year deal.

Edited October 7, 2008 by Habsfan

[CerebusClone]

Plekanec has improved by leaps and bounds every year he's been with the habs. If he can get a 70-75 point season this year, I think it'd be safe to offer him a 4 or 5 year deal.

I wouldn't mind signing Tomas Plekanec to a 5+ year deal, however not at a genuine number 1 centre salary. If Plekanec accepts to stay in Montreal for a decent salary in the 3.75 to 4.25M range, which is most likely below what his market value is (even though he's only a RFA), he would become a great asset for the Canadiens because of his versatility and strong two-play. At that salary, we can still easily use Plekanec in different roles, from a more defensive role on a third line to his current role as an offensive centre if we have strong wingers to support him.

However anything more than that would practically force the organization to use him strictly in an offensive role, and would put the burden to carry the offense on his shoulders, which I don't think he's strong enough to do. Plekanec is a great player to have on a roster, but he's not an offensive leader, and you can't build around a guy like him.