Confirmed with Link: Parayko signs 5 year deal [5.5 AAV]

[TheDizee]

Click to read more...

 

[Vladys Gumption]

AAV is exactly what I thought it would be. Hate the term. Should have been a 2 year deal, or 6+.

 

[The Note]

Term is meh but the AAV is right in line.

 

[Oberyn]

I would preferred 6 years as well but I do like the AAV.

 

[TruBlu]

Term was shorter than I wanted, but that was probably the concession that DA had to agree at that salary. That puts him in a great position to get a long term, 8 year contract following this one. I'm just glad we have him locked up for what looks like a pretty lengthy window with this young core we have.

 

[Splatter]

5.5 for 5 for 55

 

[Evocable Manager]

I would've rather the AAV raise to 6.5M if it meant we could squeak out 8 years. The term kinda sucks.

The AAV itself is a steal. 5.5M for one of the best defenseman in the NHL.

 

[Dbrownss]

Eh.....happy but dont like the term too much. Cant blame colt, he be primed for a huge contract at 29.

 

[BangarangxRufio]

5.5 for 5 for 55

 

[Stealth JD]

UFA in five years? Not ideal.

 

[Robb_K]

Eh.....happy but dont like the term too much. Cant blame colt, he be primed for a huge contract at 29.

But having him up for a new contract at 29, rather than 32, might have him end up as a career Blue, when being up for a new one at the somewhat old age of 32, might have The Blues balk at giving him a long-term contract taking him to 36-39 years old, when he'd possibly get that from another team.

There's no way to know. I'm happy that they didn't go to arbitration and end up with only a 2-year contract. And, now, The Blues have $1 million more in cap room than they'd have had with an 8-year contract for him.

 

[Brian39]

I like but don't love the term. I think 5 years is better than an arbitration award, a 3 year or a 4 year term. But I would have liked to buy as many UFA years as RFA years. With that said, 5 years of Parayko is still pretty damn exciting. 5 years is a long time in pro sports, so it's not like we will barely have the guy on our team. Just for fun, I went back and looked at our blueline 5 years ago:

Jackman, Petro, Shatty, Colaiacovo, Polak, Russell. So a lot changes in 5 years even for a team like the Blues who remained highly competitive for that entire window.

He is going to get paid after those 5 years, but I'm pretty confident that big contract will be from the Blues unless he regresses badly (I strongly doubt that) or the organization is better off trading him for a rebuild at that point (I also see this as unlikely). Barring a big step back, Parayko at $5.5 and Petro at $6.5 for 4 more years is a hell of a 1-2 punch down the right side for a pretty darn affordable price. That's a win.

So again, I would have liked to see another year or two, but I'm still happy with this contract. I think the AAV is spot on when looking at his comparables, but I also firmly believe that Parayko's play over the next 5 years will be at (or near) the top of the group he was compared to.

 

[Dbrownss]

But having him up for a new contract at 29, rather than 32, might have him end up as a career Blue, when being up for a new one at the somewhat old age of 32, might have The Blues balk at giving him a long-term contract taking him to 36-39 years old, when he'd possibly get that from another team.

There's no way to know. I'm happy that they didn't go to arbitration and end up with only a 2-year contract. And, now, The Blues have $1 million more in cap room than they'd have had with an 8-year contract for him.

Good point and it makes sense.

 

[EL Bandito]

I would've loved it to be 6yrs but this puts him at 29 with the possibility of a mega 8 yr deal only taking him to 36yrs old if he wants to stick around as a lifer. It's probably the best of both worlds for everyone involved.

 

[Vincenzo Arelliti]

I'm not sure how I feel about this. Of course the AAV is amazing, but I was really hoping for longer term. I'd be curious to know what the ask was for a 6, 7, and 8 year deal from the Parayko camp.

 

[Brian39]

But having him up for a new contract at 29, rather than 32, might have him end up as a career Blue, when being up for a new one at the somewhat old age of 32, might have The Blues balk at giving him a long-term contract taking him to 36-39 years old, when he'd possibly get that from another team.

There's no way to know. I'm happy that they didn't go to arbitration and end up with only a 2-year contract. And, now, The Blues have $1 million more in cap room than they'd have had with an 8-year contract for him.

This is a factor I didn't consider much when we first started talking about a Parayko extension, but have come around on the last few weeks. Going UFA at 29 instead of 31 definitely benefits the player the most, but there is definitely some upside for the team as well. Barring a big change to the CBA regarding contract rules, it has become exceedingly clear that premier players in their late 20s and early 30s will be receiving max term deals. It's the only way to make the cap hit work and most GMs seem content to only think 5 years out and worry about years 6+ later (or leave the problem for the next guy). Giveing out 8 years to a 29 year old is a much easier pill to swallow than a 31 year old, which gives the Blues an edge in negotiating since we can offer that extra year.

 

[EL Bandito]

I like but don't love the term. I think 5 years is better than an arbitration award, a 3 year or a 4 year term. But I would have liked to buy as many UFA years as RFA years. With that said, 5 years of Parayko is still pretty damn exciting. 5 years is a long time in pro sports, so it's not like we will barely have the guy on our team. Just for fun, I went back and looked at our blueline 5 years ago:

Jackman, Petro, Shatty, Colaiacovo, Polak, Russell. So a lot changes in 5 years even for a team like the Blues who remained highly competitive for that entire window.

He is going to get paid after those 5 years, but I'm pretty confident that big contract will be from the Blues unless he regresses badly (I strongly doubt that) or the organization is better off trading him for a rebuild at that point (I also see this as unlikely). Barring a big step back, Parayko at $5.5 and Petro at $6.5 for 4 more years is a hell of a 1-2 punch down the right side for a pretty darn affordable price. That's a win.

So again, I would have liked to see another year or two, but I'm still happy with this contract. I think the AAV is spot on when looking at his comparables, but I also firmly believe that Parayko's play over the next 5 years will be at (or near) the top of the group he was compared to.

Agreed pretty much 100%. Petro is for 3 years more, not 4. Either way it's a good problem to have.

 

[SirPaste]

Love the price, hate the term

 

[Majorityof1]

From other thread:

Agreed. This trend from Armstrong to sign our best RFAs to shorter term contracts to save a few bucks really sucks. Granted, I don't know how much that extra year would have cost. However, I'd rather go a good bit more to get 1-2 more years. Slavin who is an excellent comparable got less money for 2 more years. Its so much so a better deal, I'd almost rather have Slavin on that deal than Parayko on ours, just for those 2 extra years. Edmonton now knows when they will get their franchise #1D, in '22-23.

Don't get me wrong, it isn't the end of the world, and I am glad to have him locked up. But still don't like sacrificing control of stud players (Schwartz/Parayko), so we can have multiple $3.25M+ 3rd liners.

Slavin's deal bought 4 UFA years for $200k less per year than we bought 2 from Parayko. Parayko very well might not be a Blue long term. This could be another Shattenkirk situation. Colton's first game as a Blue, he called the Oilers "we" multiple times. He is a huge Oilers fan. I don't know if they will be in a position financially with McDavid and Draisaitl, but if they can make a competitive offer, I don't see how we compete.

 

[Chojin]

I like the term, but I think the salary is a bit too high. I would have thought he'd come in closer to Lindholm/Vatanen.

 

[Alklha]

As long as he is signed at the end of the new deal, then it is fine.

It certainly isn't a great deal, it is a higher cap hit for less years than the comparable defensemen. It's solid, but not more than that.

 

[Brian39]

I'm not sure how I feel about this. Of course the AAV is amazing, but I was really hoping for longer term. I'd be curious to know what the ask was for a 6, 7, and 8 year deal from the Parayko camp.

I'd imagine 8 was essentially off the table unless the AAV started with a 7, which would be a complete non-starter.

The more I think about it, the more I'm confident that Parayko wanted to make sure he was going UFA at a time where a max term deal wouldn't push him into a scary age bracket. an 8 year deal now would have certainly cost him $5+ million dollars on his next contract, since an 8 year term would have put him at 40 by the end (or 39 on a 7 year deal). A team would have given him 7 years, but the last couple would have been much lower salary than the rest. This deal (or a 6 year) allow him to negotiate a max term deal without worry that there will be a massive drop off in the last couple years where the contract is an albatross.

I'd guess Parayko was asking for $6-$6.2 mil AAV for a 6 year deal and $6.5 mil on a 7 year deal. I doubt we'll ever get exact figures and that is just an educated guess. If the final number was $5.5 for 5, I can't imagine Parayko was willing to go much below $6 mil for an extra year of UFA. That's $3 mil over the life of the deal. I'd wager that going UFA at 29 instead of 30 will be worth about $3 mil over the life of that contract, so it wouldn't make much sense for Parayko to pass that up for less than $3 mil.

 

[stl76]

Really happy we avoided abitration. That's honestly the bottom line for me: we avoided arbitration and get to have Parayko for at least 5 years at a super reasonable cap hit. Safe to say we would all like to have seen longer term, but Robb makes a good point about Parayko being able to sign an eight year deal w/ the Blues at 29.

I'm just glad it's over. All in all, another instance of Armstrong handling an important RFA well.

 

[Skinnyjimmy08]

Looks like he took less in order to only sign for 5 years... Such a unreal cap hit for those 5 years though

Was hoping it would be 6+ for 8 years but i guess Parayko is planning for a massive raise in 5 years

Steal!!

 

[Davimir Tarablad]

I'm warming up to the term a little bit more. It's mutually beneficial as the Blues will be more comfortable offering an 8yr deal to a 29yr old Parayko, while Parayko has incentive to take the extra guaranteed money from the extra year Blues can offer. The two negatives is having one less year of control in case he wants to pull a Shattenkirk and go home, and having to bite the bullet a year earlier on his extension.