Confirmed with Link: Eriksson-Ek signs for 8 years ($5.25m AAV)

[2Pair]

But $4.5M a year to play with Foligno is super fair and super cool? That's just too extreme of a jump, IMO, for how little amount of money the different actually is.

You understand the salary cap way too well to keep pretending that overpaying every player by $1M isn't a big deal.

 

[TaLoN]

No bargain... team didn't get a discount for that term... borderline deal. Don't love it, don't exactly hate it.

 

[Prior]

Or Guerin is willing to pay to send Parise away to be bought out by another team.

I like to operate in the realm of things that can actually happen.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

You understand the salary cap way too well to keep pretending that overpaying every player by $1M isn't a big deal.

Yeah, but I also think there are shades of grey. Overpaying JEE by $750k from 24-31 isn't the same as overpaying Spurgeon by $1M from 31-37. And I'll admit to having a bit of rose-colored glasses on during the Spurgeon signing, but I think there enough differences here.

I think I know the answer, but if 5 x $4.5M was the no brainer deal, what's the right $'s on an 8 year deal?

 

[2Pair]

Yeah, but I also think there are shades of grey. Overpaying JEE by $750k from 24-31 isn't the same as overpaying Spurgeon by $1M from 31-37. And I'll admit to having a bit of rose-colored glasses on during the Spurgeon signing, but I think there enough differences here.

I think I know the answer, but if 5 x $4.5M was the no brainer deal, what's the right $'s on an 8 year deal?

There's no reason to offer a player like Ek an 8 year deal. The risk/reward just isn't there. Ek has to become a $6-7M player for 3-4 years of this deal for it to make sense for the Wild. Just don't see that happening

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

There's no reason to offer a player like Ek an 8 year deal. The risk/reward just isn't there. Ek has to become a $6-7M player for 3-4 years of this deal for it to make sense for the Wild. Just don't see that happening

I fully agree that Ek can't just rest on what he's been with this deal.

 

[StateofCelly]

I feel like as the world gets back to normal and the new TV deals and we work out of flat cap, the contract will fall where it should as we enter the best years of the deal. This also shores up some certainty at C even if it ends up at top tier 3c, and keeps us in line to stagger Boldy, Rossi, Kaprizov and any other prospects like Addison or Marat. I don’t love it right now but not going to squabble over $500k

 

[2Pair]

I fully agree that Ek can't just rest on what he's been with this deal.

I just don't see him becoming the kind of player were it makes sense to pay this kind of premium to bet on his development.

I think there's a good chance that he plays well enough over the course of the deal that we never really care that much about it. I just don't think there's much chance of him greatly outperforming the deal to the point that it would be worth the 8 years worth of risk.

 

[AKL]

I fully agree that Ek can't just rest on what he's been with this deal.

I think that if Ek was placed in more of a top six two way role, much in the same way Couturier was, he would easily be worth this contract. However, if their plan is to continue to keep him in a purely defensive role, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I have no idea what the plan for him is in the next eight years, but at this point, whether or not he lives up to this contract is entirely on how the rest of the team is built and how the coach deploys him. Guys like Bergeron, O'Reilly, even Danault, etc all carved out careers as strong defensive forwards playing on an offensive line. Now Ek needs to be able to do the same.

As a player, he's worth this contract, but for the role he's currently used in, it's a bit much.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

I just don't see him becoming the kind of player were it makes sense to pay this kind of premium to bet on his development.

I think there's a good chance that he plays well enough over the course of the deal that we never really care that much about it. I just don't think there's much chance of him greatly outperforming the deal to the point that it would be worth the 8 years worth of risk.

Fair. 8 years definitely wasn't on my radar. When Russo said "long term", my mind stopped at 6.

But, part of me does like the idea that the next decision we have to make with him is at 31 years old, and not 28/29, as long as they can control themselves, and set up a good enough center situation to not feel pressured.

In general, I just like the concept of getting guys through these ages, and avoiding the 27/28/29 year old LT signings. I really think if this was a consistent principle, and teams were smart about it when the contracts expired at 30/31/32, it would work out a lot more than it wouldn't.

 

[Wild11MN]

I'm not sure what to think about this yet. It's basically betting that JEE keeps an upward trajectory, and I'm not sure that's wise. If it happens, it'll be an absolute steal. I'm just not sure I believe it.

An eventually rising cap means this should never be an albatross, but I don't know yet on this.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

I think that if Ek was placed in more of a top six two way role, much in the same way Couturier was, he would easily be worth this contract. However, if their plan is to continue to keep him in a purely defensive role, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I have no idea what the plan for him is in the next eight years, but at this point, whether or not he lives up to this contract is entirely on how the rest of the team is built and how the coach deploys him. Guys like Bergeron, O'Reilly, even Danault, etc all carved out careers as strong defensive forwards playing on an offensive line. Now Ek needs to be able to do the same.

As a player, he's worth this contract, but for the role he's currently used in, it's a bit much.

Yeah, I'm definitely not calling it an "A", but it's closer to a "B" than a "D" for me.

 

[2Pair]

Fair. 8 years definitely wasn't on my radar. When Russo said "long term", my mind stopped at 6.

But, part of me does like the idea that the next decision we have to make with him is at 31 years old, and not 28/29, as long as they can control themselves, and set up a good enough center situation to not feel pressured.

In general, I just like the concept of getting guys through these ages, and avoiding the 27/28/29 year old LT signings. I really think if this was a consistent principle, and teams were smart about when the contracts expired at 30/31/32, it would work out a lot more than it wouldn't.

How old was Spurgeon when his last contract expired?

I do agree with what you're saying about the age groups, but I don't think it justifies overpaying a player like Ek. 4 years now @ $4.5M followed by 4 years @ $6M ends in the same exact spot as his current deal. Cuts the risk in half.

 

[Bazeek]

I think that if Ek was placed in more of a top six two way role, much in the same way Couturier was, he would easily be worth this contract. However, if their plan is to continue to keep him in a purely defensive role, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I have no idea what the plan for him is in the next eight years, but at this point, whether or not he lives up to this contract is entirely on how the rest of the team is built and how the coach deploys him. Guys like Bergeron, O'Reilly, even Danault, etc all carved out careers as strong defensive forwards playing on an offensive line. Now Ek needs to be able to do the same.

As a player, he's worth this contract, but for the role he's currently used in, it's a bit much.

Hard not to wonder if this contract implies management sees him in something other than just a checking line role. I've argued against that a lot on here, but if they try it and it works I'll be thrilled.

 

[2Pair]

I'm not sure what to think about this yet. It's basically betting that JEE keeps an upward trajectory, and I'm not sure that's wise. If it happens, it'll be an absolute steal. I'm just not sure I believe it.

An eventually rising cap means this should never be an albatross, but I don't know yet on this.

What kind of numbers does Ek have to put up to make that happen though?

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

How old was Spurgeon when his last contract expired?

I do agree with what you're saying about the age groups, but I don't think it justifies overpaying a player like Ek. 4 years now @ $4.5M followed by 4 years @ $6M ends in the same exact spot as his current deal. Cuts the risk in half.

Like I said, the other half of the equation is being smart about the 31 year olds. But I'm not going to take a total loss on the Spurgeon thing because of extenuating circumstances. Just a partial loss.

It depends on the market in 4 years and if 4 x $6 is what that number is, and not 6 or 7 x $6+.

 

[AKL]

Hard not to wonder if this contract implies management sees him in something other than just a checking line role. I've argued against that a lot on here, but if they try it and it works I'll be thrilled.

I'm curious how a coach would even construct a team using what we have with Ek in a top 6 role. If he's still expected to go and play against the MacKinnon's and McDavid's and Stone's of the league, do you want Fiala on that line? Or do you want Kaprizov there? I'm trying to compare it to Boston's top line.

Boldy-Ek-Kaprizov? Boldy-Ek-Fiala? Rossi centering the second line with the other one and Zuccarello? It's a major paradigm shift from what we've grown accustomed to here. You could have Dewar or Sturm (or insert cheaper third line center from FA) centering the Greenway-Foligno line, obviously you're probably not gonna send it out against those top players with that center though.

It'll be interesting to see what else Guerin does. And by interesting I mean he'll probably do nothing else about this and Ek will be centering the same line in the same role next season with Rossi and Rask as the top six centers.

 

[ctmagic]

I just don't see him becoming the kind of player were it makes sense to pay this kind of premium to bet on his development.

I think there's a good chance that he plays well enough over the course of the deal that we never really care that much about it. I just don't think there's much chance of him greatly outperforming the deal to the point that it would be worth the 8 years worth of risk.

You just defined what a fair deal is.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

I would be a little confused about this last season if the plan going forward was to elevate Eriksson Ek in the lineup, and we didn't do this year for... whatever reasons.

 

[2Pair]

Like I said, the other half of the equation is being smart about the 31 year olds. But I'm not going to take a total loss on the Spurgeon thing because of extenuating circumstances. Just a partial loss.

It depends on the market in 4 years and if 4 x $6 is what that number is, and not 6 or 7 x $6+.

And it's just as likely that you're looking at 4 or 5 x $4M

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

And it's just as likely that you're looking at 4 or 5 x $4M

It's all just a little bit of a gamble, I guess.

 

[AKL]

I would be a little confused about this last season if the plan going forward was to elevate Eriksson Ek in the lineup, and we didn't do this year for... whatever reasons.

My only counterpoint might be that no one expected Ek to be as good as he was this past season, and once he was doing it, they didn't want to call an audible midseason on one of the only consistent lines we had. Now Guerin has a little time to plan ahead, find a suitable replacement on that line, and there's going to be a whole training camp and preseason for everyone to adjust to their new roles.

But again, this is all 100% wishful thinking on my part. The most likely outcome is nothing will change.

 

[2Pair]

You just defined what a fair deal is.

A fair deal would be paying him what he's worth. This deal requires Ek to be better than he ever has been in his career, just to make it even.

 

[Legegendsofthenorth]

Probably needs to be a ~45 point player with top 10 Selke level defense for that contract. We'll see.

He was on pace for 44 pts and was 4th in Selke

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

He was on pace for 44 pts and was 4th in Selke

Yeah, do it with a 10-12% shooting percentage and stay in that Selke talk and we're good.