Speculation: Guess Binnington's next contract

[Spektre]

He's the first goalie to ever lead the Blues to the Cup and did so as a rookie. He’s eligible to be a UFA in two years.

I'm guessing on the high side and will say 6 years at 5.5 million per year.

Click to read more...

 

[Blueston]

3 years at $5mm per

 

[TheDizee]

1 yr 3 million

 

[converseman54]

3 years at $5mm per

Sounds like a pretty good guess to me. Don't want to go too long or too short on this

 

[JoshFromMO]

3yr $4m is my guess

 

[tfriede2]

1 year, 3.3 mil

 

[Klank Loves You]

4 years @ 4.5

 

[Novacain]

God this is an impossible question. There are no real comparable to pull from.

4 years, 4 million?

 

[67Blues]

1 year at $3.5m. That will leave the next contract at 26 years old and 1 year from UFA where he can cash in. I think the Blues put it to him this way, sign that one year deal, we have cap room to surround you again with a talented squad to go after a repeat. If he wants to go long term for 6/$6m, that could hurt the team and then probably Schenn gets traded.

You still have the sour taste of the Allen contract after he cashed in on one good playoff round. I don't think the Blues will be too excited to lock up Binny long term after only 50 games even if those games were absolutely stellar. This is a prove it contract before he cashes in. The risk the Blues run into is if he continues to stand on his head and suddenly he goes to an $8m year guy for term, but there are worst things that could happen.

 

[LetsGoBooze]

Im going with 4x5.5

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I'm assuming when I see "3 years, $4 million" or "4 years, $4 million" means "3/4 years, $4 million per year" because if it's really "3/4 years, $4 million total" .... no. No f***ing way in hell, no.

1 yr 3 million

1 year, 3.3 mil

We had a prior thread and I went through all the recent RFA contracts that are decent comparables; I think Allen's contract (4 years, $17.4 million - $4.35M per) is the low water mark at this point. It's incredibly difficult for Doug Armstrong to put together any kind of argument for why the guy who just backstopped his team to the Cup should get less money per year than his now-backup who has just over half the postseason wins and the same number of postseason losses, had 2 cracks at being the #1 guy in the postseason and got out of the 1st round once, and got fully supplanted as the #1 guy in the regular season.

Maybe someone can do it, but I'm not seeing it.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

You still have the sour taste of the Allen contract after he cashed in on one good playoff round. I don't think the Blues will be too excited to lock up Binny long term after only 50 games even if those games were absolutely stellar. This is a prove it contract before he cashes in. The risk the Blues run into is if he continues to stand on his head and suddenly he goes to an $8m year guy for term, but there are worst things that could happen.

That all reads great, except that Binnington can go file for arbitration. In that case "well, it was only 50 games" doesn't matter. It's all about the stats, and Binnington's stats and impact are definitively better than Allen's stats and that contract is a comparable that can [and will] get used against Armstrong in a hearing.

The argument for needing cap space for other guys? OK, plausible, but we could still dump Allen's contract somewhere and that opens up space too. Why not that? Does anyone really think this team is going back to Allen long-term? If Steen were to decide to call it quits, that would also free up money. [No, I really don't think we're trading him.] Eddy won't make much over what he got this past year, Blais and Barbashev and Fabbri aren't arbitration-eligible, and Sanford isn't making a killing in arbitration if he files. [Sundqvist? That might be a bigger worry.]

 

[illininer]

Really depends on if they can get rid of Allen's contract. If they can't, I expect a 1 year "prove it" deal. If they can, I expect a deal very similar to Allen's with slightly more AAV and then I think they sign Elliot as a backup.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

BTW, we've discussed this topic a couple times previously. I can't find the first time we did it [edit: it was this thread - Blues Discussion Thread 2018-2019 - Part VI - starting around post #400 in the thread] but this one [a shorter thread] was during the series vs. Dallas: Salary Cap: - Binnington

 

[ezcreepin]

That all reads great, except that Binnington can go file for arbitration. In that case "well, it was only 50 games" doesn't matter. It's all about the stats, and Binnington's stats and impact are definitively better than Allen's stats and that contract is a comparable that can [and will] get used against Armstrong in a hearing.

The argument for needing cap space for other guys? OK, plausible, but we could still dump Allen's contract somewhere and that opens up space too. Why not that? Does anyone really think this team is going back to Allen long-term? If Steen were to decide to call it quits, that would also free up money. [No, I really don't think we're trading him.] Eddy won't make much over what he got this past year, Blais and Barbashev and Fabbri aren't arbitration-eligible, and Sanford isn't making a killing in arbitration if he files. [Sundqvist? That might be a bigger worry.]

Once a player hits the age of 35, I believe that team is still on the hook for that contract. I THINK it is still towards the cap, but idk for sure.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Once a player hits the age of 35, I believe that team is still on the hook for that contract. I THINK it is still towards the cap, but idk for sure.

Signed at 35 or older. [Signed = "age of the player when the contract goes into effect"]

 

[67Blues]

That all reads great, except that Binnington can go file for arbitration. In that case "well, it was only 50 games" doesn't matter. It's all about the stats, and Binnington's stats and impact are definitively better than Allen's stats and that contract is a comparable that can [and will] get used against Armstrong in a hearing.

The argument for needing cap space for other guys? OK, plausible, but we could still dump Allen's contract somewhere and that opens up space too. Why not that? Does anyone really think this team is going back to Allen long-term? If Steen were to decide to call it quits, that would also free up money. [No, I really don't think we're trading him.] Eddy won't make much over what he got this past year, Blais and Barbashev and Fabbri aren't arbitration-eligible, and Sanford isn't making a killing in arbitration if he files. [Sundqvist? That might be a bigger worry.]

The Blues time to send him to arbitration I believe dies either today or tomorrow (48 hours past the last game in the final). But, if I am correct, the Blues get to set the term length of the arbitration, so that is in their favor. And the arbitrators in hockey have been fairly fair in the past unlike in some other sports. I don't think they will be that far apart, Armstrong usually comes in with pretty fair numbers. If Binny is expecting something way out of line, they'll have a tough time getting that past the arbitrator.

I suspect it won't get that far, but you never know. Eddy will probably be offered pretty much what he made last year as he was a gong show at times this year. You are right though that Sunny is going to get paid. We've got $18.7m on the books with 16 contracts on the books. I think they should be able to fit it all in there.

 

[carter333167]

As a general matter, without specifically addressing Binny who obviously is going to get a healthy raise, this is where winning the Cup gets sticky for the team......contracts.

Does DA hand out extra term and money for the sheer merit of winning the Cup or does he expect and demand reasonable stances from the players to keep the team as competitive as possible for the next 5-6 years?

 

[67Blues]

As a general matter, without specifically addressing Binny who obviously is going to get a healthy raise, this is where winning the Cup gets sticky for the team......contracts.

Does DA hand out extra term and money for the sheer merit of winning the Cup or does he expect and demand reasonable stances from the players to keep the team as competitive as possible for the next 5-6 years?

Keep in mind too that we are probably going to lose someone pretty good in the expansion draft in 2021, so DA has to also keep that in mind.

 

[WiscoBlues]

3 years x 4m AAV is my guess. Murray has gotta be the closest comparable, right?

 

[Xerloris]

I see no way he gets less than Allens Pejorative Slur contract. If I was Binnington and I was offered less than Allen I would literally demand a trade and walk out.

 

[ezcreepin]

Signed at 35 or older. [Signed = "age of the player when the contract goes into effect"]

Ahhh ok, makes more sense now.

 

[Alklha]

I'd guess it will be something like $3.25m for one year.

I expect that Armstrong will have learned from the Allen mistake and I wouldn't be surprised if Binnington was happy with a one year deal to earn something more next summer.

As for the arbitration process, none of us can speculate on how they will weight the factors. The fact he hasn't played 60 NHL games absolutely is going to be taken into consideration, but so will his role in our run since the turn of the year. His sv% is .922, which is comparable to Grubauer last season. Grubauer had a longer track record of that level of production, but he didn't do it in the playoffs. He signed 3 years at $3.33m, which includes two UFA year. Murray had a three year deal at $3.75m, which was signed having played fewer NHL games than Binnington, but having put up better numbers.

I would be surprised to see either side filed for arbitration though. I don't think that a two year deal suits either side, but the moment that the other files for arbitration then it becomes the logical choice for the request in arbitration.

 

[ezcreepin]

As a general matter, without specifically addressing Binny who obviously is going to get a healthy raise, this is where winning the Cup gets sticky for the team......contracts.

Does DA hand out extra term and money for the sheer merit of winning the Cup or does he expect and demand reasonable stances from the players to keep the team as competitive as possible for the next 5-6 years?

If Army is smart. he will evaluate which players are essential to staying competitive long term. Chicago got themselves in big trouble with handing out major contracts to players who may or may not have been worthy, but I guess 3 cups is a good trade off. I don't think Maroon should be signed if he is wanting term and a 3 mil+ contract. Steen needs to be shopped elsewhere, and he might be willing to retire next year if we have another good run, but who knows. Gunnar shouldn't get a long term deal, plus he is pretty old. Bouw will likely retire next year.

At this point, the Blues will have to give contracts to people like Sunny, Barby, Sanford, Blais, etc, knowing full well we wont keep everybody from this cup run in a few years time. The most important signings are obviously Schenn and Petro, with Vova looming shortly after that. What's good about this team is that there are no superstars per se, but there are a lot of great players. Schwartz and Parayko won't be considered superstars, but they are essential to this run, and they don't make 10% towards the cap. The likely highest contract on this team after next year will be Petro, and it'll probably only be 9 mil.

I think Army is smart enough to know that you can't hold emotional ties to a team that won you a cup. If Eddy wants 4 mil, either he can negotiate a lower salary, or he's gone. Same thing for Schenn. He showed this reasoning by not signing Backes, and look where we are just a few years after. No one is untradeable and you most definitely can get something of worth from probably anyone on this team.

 

[GoldenSeal]

Kid just brought us the Cup, he can have whatever he wants. Saying that, he doesn't seem the type to gouge the team, figuring a bridge contract situation for good money. He's here to stay. Jake on the other hand...