Jump to content

Revisiting the Debate: Long-Term Contracts or Bridge Deals


Commandant

Recommended Posts

With the current play of Alex Galchenyuk and Brendan Gallagher do the Habs have to reassess the way they handle players coming off of an entry level contract? Should we be doing longer term deals with these guys? Lars Eller? PK's next deal? Is it a better way to manage the cap what Edmonton is doing?

Revisiting the Bridge Contract vs Long-Term Deal Debate and the Montreal Canadiens Future
http://lastwordonsports.com/2013/10/11/montreal-canadiens-should-take-a-page-from-mlbs-rays/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would DEFINITELY go the 6M$ for 8 years way with Galchenyuk. (as we should have done with Subban)

But I'd go with a bridge deal for Gallagher. Can he constantly put up these numbers ? I hope so, but I'm not convinced.

Galchenyuk ? I would bet my house on it.

Then again, this might put the Habs in a tight cap situation in some years, but there has to be a way to work with it. MB has to find a way to avoid paying Galchenyuk 8M$ per year in a few seasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sigh. I don't know the answer to this conundrum. Yes, everyone loves the idea of locking up star talent at a discounted rate long term. But teams aren't always going to get it right when it comes to assessing the longer-term development of a player, and this can result in you getting stuck with bloated contracts for guys whose ceiling turns out to be lower than you thought it was. Ultimately my feeling is that it's probably six of one, half-a-dozen of the other; either approach can end up hurting you.

So there may be something to be said for the philosophy of just paying guys what they're worth rather than trying to stiff them (long-term deal, with the risk of being locked into a huge overpayment). We probably need to accept the necessity of paying PK, Galchenyuk, etc., massive money and that they will need to be supplemented by a steady stream of cheap young talent coming through the pipeline. Keep in mind that the cap will probably go on rising, such that contracts that seem huuuuge when you sign them will probably look more moderate by year three or four of the deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Joe... as I said in the comments on the site.

When you have a near sure-thing like PK or like Alex Galchenyuk. When things look as good as they do with those two... lock them up.

With Gallagher I give him the bridge deal.

I like Gallagher but he's not in the same ELITE like PK or Galchenyuk. I can see those guys as potentially having Norris/Hart trophy (and said that before PK signed) seasons. Gallagher will be good but not in the same class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Say you have a kid who scores more goals than anyone has ever scored before they turned 21. Do you lock that kid up for multiple years at a high dollar?

Most would say yes, and the truth is, you just signed Jimmy Carson, who went to Edmonton in the Gretzky deal, couldn't take the pressure and never met the potential he showed early on.

That's why you bridge. Always always always. You let the player work up to their potential. Colorado signed Paul Stastny early after a really great rookie year and he hasn't played to his numbers due to injury. Sure some guys will look like sure things and become sure things but you just never know. Better to let them grow into the position and take the bridge deals.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Say you have a kid who scores more goals than anyone has ever scored before they turned 21. Do you lock that kid up for multiple years at a high dollar?

Most would say yes, and the truth is, you just signed Jimmy Carson, who went to Edmonton in the Gretzky deal, couldn't take the pressure and never met the potential he showed early on.

That's why you bridge. Always always always. You let the player work up to their potential. Colorado signed Paul Stastny early after a really great rookie year and he hasn't played to his numbers due to injury. Sure some guys will look like sure things and become sure things but you just never know. Better to let them grow into the position and take the bridge deals.

Great post. Yep, that's the other side of the argument, and a good case it is, too. This really is one of those issues where there's no knockout right answer; and therefore, no matter what an organization's policy is, half your fanbase will be perpetually outraged over how you handle it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Say you have a kid who scores more goals than anyone has ever scored before they turned 21. Do you lock that kid up for multiple years at a high dollar?

Most would say yes, and the truth is, you just signed Jimmy Carson, who went to Edmonton in the Gretzky deal, couldn't take the pressure and never met the potential he showed early on.

That's why you bridge. Always always always. You let the player work up to their potential. Colorado signed Paul Stastny early after a really great rookie year and he hasn't played to his numbers due to injury. Sure some guys will look like sure things and become sure things but you just never know. Better to let them grow into the position and take the bridge deals.

That's why we will pay Subban more than 2M$ more than we could have.

For me, there is a clear difference between the kind of player you describe (score more goals for example) and an overall superstar player in the becoming.

Subban was one, we bridged, we'll pay.

Galchenyuk is one. Will we bridge ? We'll see.

Now, I didn't watch Paul Stastny's rookie season at all. Did he look like an absolute overall superstar in the becoming ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, I didn't watch Paul Stastny's rookie season at all. Did he look like an absolute overall superstar in the becoming ?

Best rookie scoring seasons in the last 15 years:

1. Alex Ovechkin (106 points)

2. Sidney Crosby (102 points)

3. Evgeni Malkin (85 points)

4. Paul Stastny (78 points)

5. Patrick Kane (72 points)

One of these things is not like the other, one of these players is not a franchise player.

But there he is, putting up the fourth most rookie scoring points in a season in the last 15 years. Signing that player to $6.6M when he's showing that much potential is a no brainer. His sophomore year followed those numbers with a 71 point season. He then got hurt but put the same amount of numbers, got signed to his new deal and had 70 points again, and since then he hasn't been a near point per game player anymore. Not worth $6.6M. He likely won't get that much money on the UFA either unless someone is really desperate.

Paul Stastny looked like he was going to be just as great as his dad, maybe even better. He hasn't lived up to it. Probably never will. There's nothing wrong with that, but Colorado definitely overpaid for expectations and that's exactly what you do when you have a 21 year old kid and decide he's worth investing big money in for the next 5-8 years instead of waiting a year or two later to see if he shows more consistency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bridge deal, then lock them up before free agency. If they are really that good, that locks them up longer. It keeps them reasonable in the short term, and it gives you a better look to decide what they are really worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's once again the debate of how much your 1st line C worths.

I'm on the boat of the ones who don't care about how many points someone puts up according to his salary. I go with what role he fills and what % of your salary cap you want to spend on this role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm hoping we can get Eller on something similar to Bozak or Pacioretty's deal.

I agree with the line of thinking that if you have what you consider a genuine top talent then you lock him up for cheap. It's obvious that we should have signed PK for a discount, and if Galchenyuk is playing like the guy we think he'll be and there are no injury issues then we should try the same with him. On the other hand, he's the only player on our team who I'd do this for (IF he's playing that well). Would it create an issue, one rule for him and a different one for everyone else? Bridge deals are definitely the safer bet, but sometimes you have be sure of yourself and roll the dice. Chicago has benefitted from having Kane and Toews on a discount for a while now, and it will be much harder to contend when both of them are making 7.5 million plus (they could easily get more, but maybe they'll demand less to help the team). We made a mistake in not rolling the dice with PK, and if the situation repeats itself we're talking about 4 million in squandered cap space, or a quality UFA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the bridge may be the way to go in most cases, but for the sake of argument, the real risk you run with the bridge (besides overpaying later) is that you potentially make the player concerned feel undervalued and you give them an opportunity to leave the organization earlier than locking them up long term. I imagine the screams will be long and loud if Subban walked next year. I'm not saying this will happen, just pointing out a risk you take with bridge contracts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the bridge may be the way to go in most cases, but for the sake of argument, the real risk you run with the bridge (besides overpaying later) is that you potentially make the player concerned feel undervalued and you give them an opportunity to leave the organization earlier than locking them up long term. I imagine the screams will be long and loud if Subban walked next year. I'm not saying this will happen, just pointing out a risk you take with bridge contracts.

Subban's an RFA so unless he can procure an offer sheet so high that the Habs don't match, they won't need to worry about him walking this summer (or next since he'll still be an RFA then).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe firmly in the Bridge contract system.

yes in the end we will pay out our ears for Subban, but after getting 4 years to properly look at him, evaluate him, and determine his value, I feel we now know for certain what Kind of player we have here, and even if he ends up expensive as sin, we will know that he Earned it, and deserves it. Thats what the bridge system does, it gives you a bigger body of work to examine, and you have a much lesser chance at paying a guy above his true worth because you jumped the gun on a flash in the pan season.

So who cares if we end up paying 8 million for Subban now, we know that he is worth it, but if we would have signed him for 6 mill 2 summers ago, none of us would be certain he would end up being worth it. I'd rather make an 8 million dollar good decision, than a potentially 6 million dollar mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 8 year contract limit encourages a bridge deal because it allows you to buy more prime UFA years at the back of the contract. Those two years at the back end at the long-term contract price + the two year bridge deal years are what you get with a bridge deal at the cost of more money on the long-term deal.

But really, it boils down to risk. The more time you have (i.e. with a bridge deal) to properly assess what you have in a player, the more likely you are to know what you have in a player.

Bridge deal says "let's see what you can do and we'll pay you for what you do."

No bridge says "seems like you could be pretty good so let's pay you more than you're worth now and in exchange we get long term security in case you become worth more than we're paying you."

Recall that we still haven't hit the back end of all the long term deals players signed in the last half of the last CBA. There are going to be some painful years in a lot of cities when players aren't worth the space they're taking against the cap.

Then there's Tyler Myers. A cautionary tale to say the least.

I say bridge them all unless you're absolutely sure about a player. Galchenyuk might fit that criteria, but then again, you sign him to 8 years when he's 21, and when he's 29 he needs a new contract. Better bridge him while you have leverage (when he's 21) than to pay him every penny that he wants when he's 29 and fully in control. When he's 21, you're buying years when he's 29. Think about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Best rookie scoring seasons in the last 15 years:

1. Alex Ovechkin (106 points)

2. Sidney Crosby (102 points)

3. Evgeni Malkin (85 points)

4. Paul Stastny (78 points)

5. Patrick Kane (72 points)

One of these things is not like the other, one of these players is not a franchise player.

But there he is, putting up the fourth most rookie scoring points in a season in the last 15 years. Signing that player to $6.6M when he's showing that much potential is a no brainer. His sophomore year followed those numbers with a 71 point season. He then got hurt but put the same amount of numbers, got signed to his new deal and had 70 points again, and since then he hasn't been a near point per game player anymore. Not worth $6.6M. He likely won't get that much money on the UFA either unless someone is really desperate.

Paul Stastny looked like he was going to be just as great as his dad, maybe even better. He hasn't lived up to it. Probably never will. There's nothing wrong with that, but Colorado definitely overpaid for expectations and that's exactly what you do when you have a 21 year old kid and decide he's worth investing big money in for the next 5-8 years instead of waiting a year or two later to see if he shows more consistency.

Interesting post but why not looking in a different way? Did Colorado make a mistake from a gambler perspective? I really don't think so. It was a worth bet, I could argue that the chance of a superstar rookie not living up to his expectations is just 20%. You have a 80% chance of success. Who wouldn't take this bet? 80% chance to win and 20% to loose. Not bad, huh? Yes, the loss in monetary terms is pretty bad because you are going to be overpaying a bust for many years but then you could pretty much nail it and save up along the way.

Ovechkin, Kane, Crosby and Malkin. All of them are paid what they deserve. You look at Statsny and you see a point out of the curve, an aberration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Statsny is an interesting case though because of the injuries and the other young talent that pushed him down.

Any player can get injured on any deal and injuries can greatly effect the arc of an athletes career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A big difference in the other 4 rookies is they were all top picks where Stastny wasn't.

Stastny was playing for the best team of the five in his rookie year, and the others were very much in a number 1 role.

Where Crosby would have faced the other team's best defenders.... Stastny got some sheltered matchups behind Sakic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think the risk of injuries is a dumb one not to lock someone up. I'd much rather lock up a young home grown talent to a long term deal then risk spending even more stupid money on an older UFA on a long-term deal.

Subban was a no brainer. I thought that we should have locked him up to a 10 to 12 year deal BEFORE the CBA expired. We probably could have locked him up at that time for $5M to $5.5M. Now I think he is going to be at least $7.5M and more likely $8M given some of the current contracts. After the lockout he should have been locked up for 8 years. It was a dumb decision not to and now we will pay for it.

Locking up Subban for even 15 years was a less risky decision then locking up DD for 4. The alternative is you risk losing your young players to free agency, or paying more later on. The Isles were smart and locked up Tavares and even that deal, i'd have added more money to add more term. I'd much rather have a 21, 22 or 23 year old locked up long term then a 27 or 28 year old.

Stasny got injured, but based on his production that was a good deal. The Stasny contract is still better then the Horten and Clarkson contracts signed this year and are much higher risk.

From our current crop of young players, Galchenyuk is a no brainer. He should be locked up for 8 years. I'd also lock up Gallegher for 8 years right now. Paying for a skilled heart and guts guy and taking the risk he may get injured is a much better risk then severely overpaying for a 26, 27 or 28 year old UFA, considering for most players, the current trend has been a drop in production after they are 28 or 29 - particularly for goal scorers.

Even the Rangers who have played hardball with some of their RFA's, did lock up McDonough, rather then use a bridge contract. And they are a classic case at trading for over-priced players or signing UFA's at the back half of their careers.

I'd rather invest in the future growth then pay for a declining asset.

We could have signed Gorges, Subban and Price to more affordable contracts if they were signed earlier. The hawks got good deals with their core by signing them before they hit UFA status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My problem with signing players to long term deals is motivational. I see an awful lot of players sign the big deal and proceed to play like shite for the next few years. like say DD. Or Dipietro or a whole bunch of others. I think a player has to see that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. I think if he knows well, I am going to be paid 8 mill for 8 years, no matter what I do, it tends to take some motivation away. This doesn't happen to every player see Sid, but it happens to enough of them that it is a real risk imho. I think 3-4 years is a good contract length. I really don't care how much more it costs Mr Molson, I don't think we will be holding any red tag days for him soon. Players are by nature very competitive and look for that reward at the end. So I think it is better if a player says I am making 8 million now but if I perform like I can then I can make even more. It is this nature that gave them the drive to make it to the NHL in the first place. And that is not an easy thing to do. Just my opinion. :habslogo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another concept behind the bridge deal is that in a salary cap world, tomorrow's dollar is worth less than today's. Signing Subban to a 6/36 million dollar deal means we can't get a UFA. Next year, 7.5 million instead of 6, is "theoretically" the same because it occupies 10% of the cap, like 6 this year. Plus the bridge pays for a UFA. (Yeah, I know the prize is Briere, but that's Bergevin's fault).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another concept behind the bridge deal is that in a salary cap world, tomorrow's dollar is worth less than today's. Signing Subban to a 6/36 million dollar deal means we can't get a UFA. Next year, 7.5 million instead of 6, is "theoretically" the same because it occupies 10% of the cap, like 6 this year. Plus the bridge pays for a UFA. (Yeah, I know the prize is Briere, but that's Bergevin's fault).

How many UFA contracts actually are worth it? Most guys at 27-30 are looking for the full 7 year deal. This is when most are on the downside of their careers. I'd rather sign a 22-23 year old and lock him up for 8, when his best years are ahead of him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many UFA contracts actually are worth it? Most guys at 27-30 are looking for the full 7 year deal. This is when most are on the downside of their careers. I'd rather sign a 22-23 year old and lock him up for 8, when his best years are ahead of him.

oe are you just de-motivating him? its not a word I make it up as I go along

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not all Professional athletes aren't just interested in the money. Most want to succeed. Motivation comes from a desire to succeed, not from the paycheck. You have to sign the right guys of course. Subban was a no brainer.

By your line of reasoning, What guarantee is there that once a guy signs the long term contract at 25 or 26 when he is a UFA that he won't be motivated to perform anymore??

Tavares and Duchane just signed big contracts with the the isles and Avs, have their contracts adversely affected their performance or motivation??

oe are you just de-motivating him? its not a word I make it up as I go along

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...