[Speculation] Friedman: Vatanen, Lindholm and second contracts

[Toews]

As part of a much larger discussion on defensemen, and on if he thinks both guys (Sami Vatanen and Hampus Lindholm) in Anaheim theoretically could be in play:

“You know what? I have a theory that what Bob Murray could do in Anaheim is he could make them – is he could play them next year under their qualifying offers.

Really.

“Yes. I think it’s possible. I will tell you that another team told me that they think that – and I’ll tell you this, I think teams are rooting for him to do it, because they think the second contracts have gotten out of control. They all want somebody else to do it. They don’t want to do it themselves.

“Ultimately, I don’t think that’s what Anaheim wants to do. But there are a couple of teams that think that’s what Anaheim is prepared to do.”

 

http://www.todaysslapshot.com/from-t...tract-mindset/

 

If the Ducks or any team is successful it should have a profound effect on how second contracts are looked at. In recent years we are seeing more and more teams opt to sign their players to long term contracts out of their ELC to keep cap hits low in later years.

 

There are some GMs though that are vehemently against paying big money to players who have yet to "earn" it. We have seen examples where teams have forced young players to accept bridge contracts. The PK Subban case being one of the high profile examples. It essentially became a drawn out waiting game between both parties. The Habs won and PK caved. 

 

This is taking it a whole other level. It's forcing your RFA to sign the lowest possible offer and not bothering to even negotiate. I won't say it doesn't have a chance of working as if a player has a choice between not playing an entire season or accepting a QO, most likely at some point that player will cave. You obviously risk having a detrimental effect on relations with your player as we saw in the case of ROR. 

 

What are your views? Do you think the contracts that players are receiving after their ELC are out of control? Obviously this is a suggestion that is a bit out there. The Canucks will have Horvat to sign next year so it will be interesting which way Benning goes. It will be the first high profile RFA that Benning has to handle so what he chooses to do will be quite illuminating. What is your preference when it comes to Horvat? Bridge or long term contract? I am leaning towards a longer term as this team is rebuilding, and can afford to pay Horvat more now to save paying him more in later years.

[Sean Monahan]

I have absolutely no objections to young guys getting longer deals after their ELC's provided they've played well enough to justify it. Ideally we get Bo locked up to a contract similar to Klefbom in Edmonton, with the potential for it to be a steal by the end.

[Qwags]

Bo is the only young guy we have who is worth resigning, besides Baer and Vey.

[Toews]

52 minutes ago, Wild Sean Monahan said:

I have absolutely no objections to young guys getting longer deals after their ELC's provided they've played well enough to justify it. Ideally we get Bo locked up to a contract similar to Klefbom in Edmonton, with the potential for it to be a steal by the end.

I am curious if Benning feels the same. We know certain GMs have set a trend of offering bridge contracts like Glen Sather.

 

17 minutes ago, Qwags said:

Bo is the only young guy we have who is worth resigning, besides Baer and Vey.

I agree. I feel the kind of contract he signs will set a precedent for those that come after him.

[King Heffy]

As long as permitted under the CBA.  We will have the cap space to spend more at the beginning.  Not a fan of most bridge deals unless the player is really unproven or the team is struggling to get under the cap.

[coryberg]

1 hour ago, Toews said:

It essentially became a drawn out waiting game between both parties. The Habs won and PK caved. 

In hindsight  they lost out big time. They could have locked him up long term @ 5.5 mil. Instead they cheaped out and got him below value for 2 years. He got better and bent them over. Now they are paying him 9 mil per season. They saved about 3.2 million in the 2 bridge years bit lost out on about 10.5 million on the next 3.

[Toews]

1 minute ago, coryberg said:

In hindsight  they lost out big time. They could have locked him up long term @ 5.5 mil. Instead they cheaped out and got him below value for 2 years. He got better and bent them over. Now they are paying him 9 mil per season. They saved about 3.2 million in the 2 bridge years bit lost out on about 10.5 million on the next 3.

No doubt but it also set the trend with the rest of their players for bridge contracts. Galchenyuk signed a bridge after that as well. The Habs can point to the Subban bridge contract when they do negotiations with all of their young talent. They also now have Subban locked through all of his prime years. A 5-6 contract would have taken him to UFA and cost even more.

 

I think there are pros and cons to each strategy. We have also seen contracts like these backfire as we saw with Hodgson and Cowen.

[Blue Jay 22]

There is no chance Lindholm goes anywhere. He is their best young player, and only Theodore has more potential than him out of that group. Lindholm moving is 99% A pipe dream, and I expect a Morgan Reilly type deal for him soon.

 

On the other side however, I believe Bob Murray will almost certainly have to trade one of Fowler/Vats. From what I have gathered recently on recent chatter and overheard on the message boards, the general consensus/mood is that if you can get Vatanen on a contract that is 5.5 mil or under, you do it and shop Fowler, because Theodore is a carbon copy of Fowler with higher upside and is ready to contribute immediately, whereas Montour, the carbon copy of Vatanen, might need a little more time in the AHL, at least to start the season. Not to mention Fowler will bring a significant package back by himself.

[87Crosby]

3 minutes ago, Blue Jay 22 said:

There is no chance Lindholm goes anywhere. He is their best young player, and only Theodore has more potential than him out of that group. Lindholm moving is 99% A pipe dream, and I expect a Morgan Reilly type deal for him soon.

 

On the other side however, I believe Bob Murray will almost certainly have to trade one of Fowler/Vats. From what I have gathered recently on recent chatter and overheard on the message boards, the general consensus/mood is that if you can get Vatanen on a contract that is 5.5 mil or under, you do it and shop Fowler, because Theodore is a carbon copy of Fowler with higher upside and is ready to contribute immediately, whereas Montour, the carbon copy of Vatanen, might need a little more time in the AHL, at least to start the season. Not to mention Fowler will bring a significant package back by himself.

I always though Fowler was a perfect player for the Ducks. The marketing has so many possibilities. 

[theminister]

They want to play the offer sheet game? That's some risky business. 

 

They can make the QO, retaining their rights, but there is nothing stopping the players from taking a large second deal if it's offered to them. 

 

The compensation would be significant but it also wouldn't help Amaheim now so they be forced to leverage the asset returned into trades for other players to help them in their window. 

 

Orherwise, they'll just have to match the offer sheets and wind up paying them anyway. Playing hard ball isn't necessarily the smart strategic move. 

[aGENT]

As it relates to Horvat, I'm fine with either but given his character and ability, I'd probably prefer a long term deal. 

 

So my answer would be that bridge vs long term depends on the player. 

 

As for Anaheim, as minister pointed out, they could be playing with fire with offer sheets and playing hardball like that could damage player relations. I'd tread lightly. 

[Canuck Surfer]

I think the best strategy is bridging guys, but not lowballing them. Will explain in a second. And commenting on the OP concept; A team like Anaheim, which has some albeit not indefinite cap space is going to piss guys off if they try to force Qualifying offers.

 

I would not blame them if it allowed them to cap out & win a championship investing the difference? But forcing a QO and pocketing profits while not spending to the cap will just force guys out of town. Or encourage, as The Minister suggested, offer sheets!

 

People say Montreal got hammered with PK but I disagree. He had not earned a huge contract when they bridged him. But had when he won the Norris. So they had to clear $9 mill for a 220lb Norris winning D man. Is that really a problem?  PK's deal is not the "bargain" like the deals Stamkos & Tavares signed coming off their ELC's. Or Bjugstad or Barkov. But as someone mentioned some of these second contracts become a Hodgson or Cowen. At least PK was given a bridge of $3 mill not his QO. In doing so they kept a reasonable relationship. A Norris trophy winner will be a Hab till he's 30 plus. Montreal won because they locked up PK through his prime, and even if his deal is expensive mitigated risks!  

 

The Islanders on the other hand, in a worst case scenario, could fold and go bankrupt if Tavares walks UFA at the youngest possible age of 26 or 27? Which is a distinct possibility! As is Stamkos leaving at 26. Did they really win? How much less money did Edmonton have to recruit other guys because they heavily paid Eberle, Hall & Nuge? A bridge deal, for $3 or $ mill lets you find out who the true superstars are.  Even a top dollar bridge of 3 years for the Connor McDavid's of the world would be my strategy when CMD comes off his ELC? Your goal should to keep costs fair with mid calibre guys & leverage the longest possible time with your stars!

 

I hope to see a 2 or 3 year deal for Horvat next year. If its for $4 or $5 mill because he scores 60 points? So be it!

[Winter Soldier]

2 hours ago, Qwags said:

Bo is the only young guy we have who is worth resigning, besides Baer and Vey.

Interesting sentence. 

[Jiggs50]

Can't teams throw offer sheets at the players? That would be pretty risky. 

[Sean Monahan]

2 hours ago, Toews said:

I am curious if Benning feels the same. We know certain GMs have set a trend of offering bridge contracts like Glen Sather.

 

I agree. I feel the kind of contract he signs will set a precedent for those that come after him.

With the way Bo has been handled I see them locking him up. The Canucks even market him as the face of the new youth movement. Also, as it stands right now none of the other young guys (save Hutton) have shown they should really even be considered for long term deals so I don't think giving Bo term is going to handcuff the organization with the precedent it will set.