Proposal Salary Cap Moves - Van - NJ , Van - Mtl

[J.I.A.H.N]

1 hour ago, Provost said:

Pin this because if those elite players sign for anywhere in that neighbourhood, JB is a hero.  That is short term bridge deal kind of money for that level of player.  To lock them up long term, add $2 million plus to each of those.

Yes, good catch...…….I did mean 3 year bridge deals...….I said long term......

Sorry!

Rantanen was a 8 year @ 9.25 Million per, so point taken

 

Laine on the hand was 3 years @ 6.75 Million, I believe

 

So IMO, it makes more sense to bridge them and then sign them long term on their next deal

[Provost]

14 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

Yes, good catch...…….I did mean 3 year bridge deals...….I said long term......

Sorry!

Rantanen was a 8 year @ 9.25 Million per, so point taken

 

Laine on the hand was 3 years @ 6.75 Million, I believe

 

So IMO, it makes more sense to bridge them and then sign them long term on their next deal

That could be the only way we make it work... but it is a terrible idea.

 

The way you win is to have your core players locked up long term on contracts that eventually become great deals on the back half when inflation has set in.

 

Bridge contracts, and then renegotiating once the new TV deal revenue is coming in, escrow reduced/eliminated and the cap rising up... will cost us millions extra down the road.

[J.I.A.H.N]

31 minutes ago, Provost said:

That could be the only way we make it work... but it is a terrible idea.

 

The way you win is to have your core players locked up long term on contracts that eventually become great deals on the back half when inflation has set in.

 

Bridge contracts, and then renegotiating once the new TV deal revenue is coming in, escrow reduced/eliminated and the cap rising up... will cost us millions extra down the road.

It always costs extra

and I totally get your point

But it is much easier to get it done in a way you can afford it

and with all the other kids coming on line

Benning is going to have to watch it.....

It always amazed me how Tampa could do it

but now, they are even having trouble

and are having to dump good players which weakens their team

LOL, they don't look very weak, do they? Now they are talking loosing Gourde

So, I don't know how you do it, but there seems to be a lot of bridge deals

happening with the young stars now.....take a look on Capfriendly and that is what most are

With Pettersson and Hughes 3 year deals takes them to 24 and 23 respectively

then they sign their long term deals, and get 7 or 8 year deals, that are good when they start to decline

I don't think it matter much  which way it is done, your going to pay at some point

This way they walk at 30 or 31 instead of 27 or 28.there is risk both ways, no doubt

Edited February 9, 2020 by janisahockeynut

[qwijibo]

1 hour ago, janisahockeynut said:

It always costs extra

and I totally get your point

But it is much easier to get it done in a way you can afford it

and with all the other kids coming on line

Benning is going to have to watch it.....

It always amazed me how Tampa could do it

but now, they are even having trouble

and are having to dump good players which weakens their team

LOL, they don't look very weak, do they? Now they are talking loosing Gourde

So, I don't know how you do it, but there seems to be a lot of bridge deals

happening with the young stars now.....take a look on Capfriendly and that is what most are

With Pettersson and Hughes 3 year deals takes them to 24 and 23 respectively

then they sign their long term deals, and get 7 or 8 year deals, that are good when they start to decline

I don't think it matter much  which way it is done, your going to pay at some point

This way they walk at 30 or 31 instead of 27 or 28.there is risk both ways, no doubt

Tampa has the advantage of having no state taxes.  It makes it much easier for them to sign players to more reasonable deals.