Confirmed with Link: Miller Gets the Bridge. Two-Years, $2.75 AAV

[JT Kreider]

McDonagh got a longer deal, Stepan should've got a longer deal. Some of the other players were too inconsistent coming up like Kreider, Miller, and Hayes. Poor cap management also forces their hand.

I don't have a problem with a bridge deal for Miller, if he proves to light it up the next two years, the team will be happy to pay him more.

Also extra cap space still gives them some flexibility for help on D.

They've already made their upgrades on defense. Holden and Clendening.

I use the term upgrade very loosely.

 

[Badko]

Would have preferred him locked up long term somewhere between $3M and $3.5M.

Not at all realistic.

 

[JT Kreider]

Not at all realistic.

Palmieri got six years at 4 million off one good year.

 

[Trxjw]

Hopefully in two years we're all saying "should have locked him up with term while we had the chance."

 

[Igor Shestyorkin]

Glad to have J.T. back. Love his game, and I think he can only get better.(I also have him as my avatar now )

 

[Matz03]

This is the only excuse I would accept from the team as too why they couldn't give him a longer deal. But there's a 95% chance they won't do anything with the defense so either way the point is moot

But how long would you go? You either give him a bridge deal or something like 5-6 years. If you sign him to something like 4 then he walks as a young UFA.

Are you sure in Miller to hand him a 6 year deal not at $4m plus he would likely command?

 

[Matz03]

Palmieri got six years at 4 million off one good year.

$4.65 at 25 yo

 

[Matz03]

They've already made their upgrades on defense. Holden and Clendening.

I use the term upgrade very loosely.

I disagree, mainly because updating this D will take 2-3 years. Holden and Clendening might be current stop gap but moving big cap hits at some point is definitely in the cards.

 

[Mac n Gs]

Can't they negotiate his next contract after this season if they wanted to work out a longer extension?

I'd prefer more term, but here's to hoping Miller keeps improving.

 

[cwede]

I love bridge deals, League has gone stupid, clogging Cap with very young guys. His turn to take larger part of Cap doesnt need to be now. If he earns a $5M deal next time around, he'll get it from NYR then

 

[silverfish]

He needs to shoot the puck more during 5v5. 7 players on this team had better shot rates than Miller last season. Nash, Stalberg, Staal, Stepan, Lindberg, Hayes, Kreider.

His shooting percentage is all but guaranteed to go down next season. He's going to need to shoot more to make up for that downfall if he wants to hit 20g again.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

But how long would you go? You either give him a bridge deal or something like 5-6 years. If you sign him to something like 4 then he walks as a young UFA.

Are you sure in Miller to hand him a 6 year deal not at $4m plus he would likely command?

Yea I'm pretty sure in his ability. I would be comfortable giving him 4.5 million for 5-6 years. I get it, that there's question marks, but they did a similar thing with Stepan.

Gave him a bridge deal, and he's now signed for 6.5 million. What if the team had skipped the bridge and signed him to a longer deal? Could he have been had for 4.5 million? Who knows, but it's a risk they took.

Or does it play out like Hagelin where he gets a bridge, and in two years when he wants the payday, the team ships him out, only to burn the team?

These are risks, but generally the good teams that lock up their young players have it pay off

 

[Lindberg Cheese]

I love bridge deals, League has gone stupid, clogging Cap with very young guys. His turn to take larger part of Cap doesnt need to be now. If he earns a $5M deal next time around, he'll get it from NYR then

This

 

[JT Kreider]

I love bridge deals, League has gone stupid, clogging Cap with very young guys. His turn to take larger part of Cap doesnt need to be now. If he earns a $5M deal next time around, he'll get it from NYR then

It depends. For instance the Barkov extension was a hell of a deal for the Panthers.

Barkov this past season already played like a $6 million player, and by the time he's 22 (two years from now) when Miller will need a new deal he'll still have term on his contract at a price well below what he's actually worth.

Even more so if the cap rises.

 

[Miller Time NYR]

This isn't that great. Miller is going to want $$$ in two years.

Would have preferred him locked up long term somewhere between $3M and $3.5M.

It's a good deal, but not a great one. I know it's a gamble due to his consistency and last year being his first full year, buuuuuuuut...I feel like this is a gamble the Rangers will lose.

I guess we'll see what the whole teams contract situation looks like in two years.

If we gave him longer term now it wouldn't have been for cheap, not the same money as he'll hopefully conmand in two years but it would have costed us regsrdless. If he earns a much higher AAV than great he'll get it, Nash will be gone hooefully the twins too by that point. Our cap situation should be much better in two years. IMO a bridge deal makes a lot of sense for Miller, I like it.

 

[Miamipuck]

It depends. For instance the Barkov extension was a hell of a deal for the Panthers.

Barkov this past season already played like a $6 million player, and by the time he's 22 (two years from now) when Miller will need a new deal he'll still have term on his contract at a price well below what he's actually worth.

Even more so if the cap rises.

Miller isn't even close to the player Barkov is.

 

[JT Kreider]

Miller isn't even close to the player Barkov is.

I was responding to a post specifically about bridge deals in general. Not comparing Barkov and JT.

 

[Vitto79]

Interesting. Not bad terms tbh.

He becomes UFA after this, right?

Rfa, it's similar to the kreider bridge deal

 

[lucky13]

This isn't that great. Miller is going to want $$$ in two years.

Would have preferred him locked up long term somewhere between $3M and $3.5M.

It's a good deal, but not a great one. I know it's a gamble due to his consistency and last year being his first full year, buuuuuuuut...I feel like this is a gamble the Rangers will lose.

I guess we'll see what the whole teams contract situation looks like in two years.

If his agent let him sign long term for 3 or 3.5 then he should be fired.... Long term would've cost 4 or more... I'm fine with this for now

 

[JT Kreider]

If his agent let him sign long term for 3 or 3.5 then he should be fired.... Long term would've cost 4 or more... I'm fine with this for now

True. Miller is definitely betting on himself here. Smartly. And this gives the Rangers a chance to sort out their cap mess and hopefully the future will look a little brighter by the time it comes for JT to get paid. And he will get his, if he earns it.

Players are usually a bit more motivated with money on the line.

 

[eco's bones]

I was figuring for Miller a 2 year bridge deal for about $2.7 so that was on target and it's fair.

Kreider should be around $4 on a 2-3 year deal and a bit more for years tacked onto that. Hayes I'd be around $1.8 for one or two years. McIlrath $750K for one year--$800 for two. Those were pre-arbitration figures so who knows what an arbitrator would do but playing 30 some games there's almost nowhere for McIlrath to go. As for Hayes that doubles his previous salary and coming off a letdown year I think it's fair.

 

[Miamipuck]

I was responding to a post specifically about bridge deals in general. Not comparing Barkov and JT.

I figured that, it's just the two aren't analogous in my opinion.

Miller is/was a temperamental player that got very hot during the year, can you trust him? Barkov on the other hand is going to be a Kopitar. type, a no brainer, Miller isn't that, hence one gets a lock up contract and the other a bridge.

It's a gamble either way, imo it's better to lose out on Miller on a bridge than the reverse, which I think is the prevailing sentiment.

Edit: By losing out it means Miller outplayed the contract, which is a very good thing.

 

[nyr2k2]

Ok, seems reasonable.

 

[Matz03]

Yea I'm pretty sure in his ability. I would be comfortable giving him 4.5 million for 5-6 years. I get it, that there's question marks, but they did a similar thing with Stepan.

Gave him a bridge deal, and he's now signed for 6.5 million. What if the team had skipped the bridge and signed him to a longer deal? Could he have been had for 4.5 million? Who knows, but it's a risk they took.

Or does it play out like Hagelin where he gets a bridge, and in two years when he wants the payday, the team ships him out, only to burn the team?

These are risks, but generally the good teams that lock up their young players have it pay off

That's where we differ, I'm couldn't give Miller $4.5m for 5-6 years now after one good year and really just a couple of good months. What is he a winger, a center? PP guy? definitely not a pk guy. I think we're all still figuring out what Miller becomes and what his upside could be. I really like him as a player but with messed up cap book I couldn't risk losing future rfa's over, at this point.

Stepan they really messed up with, he was immediately a 20 goal scorer, pp and pk guy. Followed it up with good years. He should've got that 6 year deal that McDonagh got and my guess it was Richards and other RFA's at the time that prevented it, not that they didn't want to hand it out. Haglin is a similar story to Stepan, probably should've locked him up long term and probably could've done it for $3-3.5m, but he was never quite a top 6 guy.

I think it's really important to take the gamble out of the equation as much as possible. Stepan long term wasn't a gamble and they should've be smart enough to see it, neither was McDoangh and they did, Miller, Hayes, both are. Kreider is a different story since he's older and already coming off a bridge deal.

 

[RangerBoy]

Miller's agent.

It would have cost much more to re-sign Miller for more term which includes group III.

Very similar to Kreider. 2 year bridge in 2014.