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

[Celtic Note]

The term is terrible. This is a Shatty contract

 

[Splatter]

I don't like the term either, but I'm content with it.

 

[MissouriMook]

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.

I agree with your "glass half full" viewpoint on this, Robb. Well said.

 

[Majorityof1]

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.

Thinking about it now, I'd rather have gone to arbitration. Had we gone to arbitration, we would have had 2 extra years at a lower cap hit. Parayko himself wanted less than $5M on his arbitration ask. Then we would have had time to get a longer deal done. Even a 4 year deal would have been for 6 years total. If he only went 3 years at the end of the arbitration award, we'd be in the same position but pushing the higher AAV off a few years until we have contracts coming off the books and the cap will have risen. If, absolutely worst case scenario, he files for arbitration again after this arbitration award, we'd have two 2-year periods, or 4 years total. That's only one less year, and again offers more cap flexibility by delaying the bigger hit.

 

[TruBlu]

This is probably the closest we will come, outside of Jackman, to seeing a career blue. That sets him up for a huge contract at 29, but I have no doubt the Blues will pay it as long as Colt does what we think he is going to do. Another thing to consider; a 6 year term would have put Parayko and Tarasenko both up for resigning during the same year. That's a lot to deal with at once. The more I factor into it, I think this term was most likely intentional and actually benefits both the player and the team. If he's willing to sign a 5 year contract, he definitely likes it in the Lou. I imagine his sights are set on resigning here again and not ending up like a Backes wanting a big contract right at the start of his decline.

 

[Brian39]

From other thread:



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.

The Blues' upside to him going UFA at 29 is that we can confidently offer an 8th year without significantly backdiving the contract. We wouldn't e able to do that if he was turning UFA at 31.

I'm going to throw out some hypothetical numbers that will almost certainly be way off since there is a CBA negotiation and massive financial uncertainty regarding 5+ year revenue projections. But let's just say the UFA price for Parayko is $8 mil AAV on max term when he is 29.

We offer him 8 years at $64 mil for a contract that expires just after he turns 37.

To match that total money, Edmonton has to offer a 7 year deal at $9.15 mil AAV.

The extra year that the existing team can offer means that other teams have to up their AAV offer by 12.5% just to match the money. That's how the Blues compete with a team like Edmonton. That's the upside of this term. Years 6+ are going to cost more, but I think it actually increases the chance that the Blues can extend him at the end of the contract.

 

[STL fan in MN]

I can only guess but I would guess Parayko either wasn't all too interested in a longer deal that would take him to 30+ or wanted the moon (can't blame him as I'd ask for it too) to sign for that long.

I would've preferred longer but this seems like a decent compromise deal.

 

[TruBlu]

The term is terrible. This is a Shatty contract

To be fair, Shatty would still be a blue if Parayko had not come along. No one saw it coming. It's a good problem to have. If we end up in the same situation next time, I'd only hope that whoever is GM at the time would have the foresight to offer up Parayko while he still has some term. That could snag a hefty prize.

 

[MortiestOfMortys]

I'm not worried about Colt at 29, I'm worried about him now. He makes us competitive, that is a great contract for a player of his caliber, and if he makes us as successful as I think he can, there's no reason to worry about him bolting at the end of it. We also avoided the dreaded arbitration room, where Armstrong & Co. would spend 90 minutes telling the arbiter about how bad of a player Parayko was and that he wasn't worth what he was asking. Instead, there's just good vibes and ink on paper.

And, more glass half-full for ya's: Armstrong just went through the Shatty saga. I don't think he'd let that happen again, assuming he's still around at the end of Parayko's contract.

The reality is that super-long contracts are very risky for both parties. It's at least somewhat probable that Parayko didn't want a 6-8 year contract.

I'm pleased with the contract.

 

[Vladys Gumption]

To be fair, Shatty would still be a blue if Parayko had not come along. No one saw it coming. It's a good problem to have. If we end up in the same situation next time, I'd only hope that whoever is GM at the time would have the foresight to offer up Parayko while he still has some term. That could snag a hefty prize.

That doesn't make Shattenkirk's deal any less terrible. At least with this deal we bought two UFA years.

 

[Skinnyjimmy08]

I can only guess but I would guess Parayko either wasn't all too interested in a longer deal that would take him to 30+ or wanted the moon (can't blame him as I'd ask for it too) to sign for that long.

I would've preferred longer but this seems like a decent compromise deal.

oh absolutely that is his thinking.... if he keeps getting better and better(which I expect) his contract will be MASSIVE after these 5 years... great planning on his side

 

[Brian39]

Thinking about it now, I'd rather have gone to arbitration. Had we gone to arbitration, we would have had 2 extra years at a lower cap hit. Parayko himself wanted less than $5M on his arbitration ask. Then we would have had time to get a longer deal done. Even a 4 year deal would have been for 6 years total. If he only went 3 years at the end of the arbitration award, we'd be in the same position but pushing the higher AAV off a few years until we have contracts coming off the books and the cap will have risen. If, absolutely worst case scenario, he files for arbitration again after this arbitration award, we'd have two 2-year periods, or 4 years total. That's only one less year, and again offers more cap flexibility by delaying the bigger hit.

I vehemently disagree.

A 2 year arbitration award expires on June 30, 2019. The NHLPA has to give notice about whether they will re-up the CBA in the fall of 2019. That means a potential lockout in 2020/21 and I'd have to imagine the NHLPA will know what they are doing before the offseason starts in 2019. The very last thing I want to be doing is trying to negotiate Parayko's last RFA year with the uncertainty surrounding a potential work stoppage. Especially since the 2 biggest gripes appear to be escrow (from the PA) and contract term (from the NHL).

What incentive would Parayko have to avoid arbitration, get a 2 year award (with year 2 likely being in a lockout season) and then becoming a UFA the summer GMs have a couple compliance buyouts and can clear cap space consequence free?

It is becoming pretty clear to me that the NHL will go through another stoppage in 2020. You have players pissed about escrow and the Olympics, owners don't like having to give out these 7 and 8 year deals to guys over 30, revenue is stagnating and I'm sure owners will want a couple more percentage points of HRR. In my opinion, locking Parayko up through that season drastically reduces the chances of losing him.

 

[TruBlu]

That doesn't make Shattenkirk's deal any less terrible. At least with this deal we bought two UFA years.

How was Shatty's deal terrible? we got a 50+ point defenseman at just over 4 mil a year. One could argue that Shatty was never going to stay here. Getting upset that he didn't sign for a term that we don't even know if he would have signed isn't really a bad contract. A bad contract would have been not locking him up at all. Suppose he would have just ridden the arbitration train to UFA, where would we have been then?

 

[Majorityof1]

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!!

Lindholm: $5.25M for 6 years. Arguably better player and definitely more established for less money and more years

Slavin: $5.3M for 7 years. A player who actually played first line minutes and very comparable player. 2 more years at less money.

Hamilton: $5.75 for 6 years. Possibly a more hyped player league-wide and more established at signing. Only a slightly higher cap hit and an extra year.

Seth Jones: $5.4 for 6 years. Better pedigree D (top 5 pick), younger and more established at signing. Less AAV and an extra year.

Ristolainen: $5.4 for 6 years. Less money more term. A great D who played more seasons and was younger.

Orlov: $5.1 for 6. Less money and 1 more year. Probably not in the same class as Parayko but still a promising young D. Bought a lot of UFA years.

Rielly: $5 for 6. Top pairing D on a great contract. 1 more year for less AAV.

So you can quibble on the comparisons between Parayko and the above. Maybe Parayko compares more favorably (he definitely does for many), or we bought more UFA or whatever. However, there is a general trend of promising young Ds get sub-$5.5M for 6 years. We paid the top range for 5 years. I'd hardly call that a steal or the cap hit unreal.

 

[Dbrownss]

Unless we hear that Parayko was open to 6-8yrs at a good AAV....there's no reason to complain imo.

 

[Majorityof1]

I vehemently disagree.

A 2 year arbitration award expires on June 30, 2019. The NHLPA has to give notice about whether they will re-up the CBA in the fall of 2019. That means a potential lockout in 2020/21 and I'd have to imagine the NHLPA will know what they are doing before the offseason starts in 2019. The very last thing I want to be doing is trying to negotiate Parayko's last RFA year with the uncertainty surrounding a potential work stoppage. Especially since the 2 biggest gripes appear to be escrow (from the PA) and contract term (from the NHL).

What incentive would Parayko have to avoid arbitration, get a 2 year award (with year 2 likely being in a lockout season) and then becoming a UFA the summer GMs have a couple compliance buyouts and can clear cap space consequence free?

It is becoming pretty clear to me that the NHL will go through another stoppage in 2020. You have players pissed about escrow and the Olympics, owners don't like having to give out these 7 and 8 year deals to guys over 30, revenue is stagnating and I'm sure owners will want a couple more percentage points of HRR. In my opinion, locking Parayko up through that season drastically reduces the chances of losing him.

Very good point about the potential work-stoppage. That is definitely something I didn't figure into the discussion.

 

[Splatter]

 

[Majorityof1]

Unless we hear that Parayko was open to 6-8yrs at a good AAV....there's no reason to complain imo.

We are never going to hear that. And even if he was not open to it, we could complain that he was not open to it. Its a trend amongst our players that they are never open to it. Are Schwartz, Shattenkirk and PArayko just that much shrewder about setting themselves up for free-agency than all their comparables? Or maybe the common thread is DA and his desire to milk every penny of the cap to over-pay 3rd liners. Or maybe players just want to flee St. Louis. Either way it sucks. You see it one way. I see it another. You telling me there is no reason to complain because we don't have all the information has not stopped me from complaining before. Nor will it here.

 

[joshyhockey26]

The term is terrible. This is a Shatty contract

This is what Parayko wanted. He wants another big contract as a younger player down the road. Have to make a compromise somewhere. The term is fine imo.

 

[joshyhockey26]

Lindholm: $5.25M for 6 years. Arguably better player and definitely more established for less money and more years

Slavin: $5.3M for 7 years. A player who actually played first line minutes and very comparable player. 2 more years at less money.

Hamilton: $5.75 for 6 years. Possibly a more hyped player league-wide and more established at signing. Only a slightly higher cap hit and an extra year.

Seth Jones: $5.4 for 6 years. Better pedigree D (top 5 pick), younger and more established at signing. Less AAV and an extra year.

Ristolainen: $5.4 for 6 years. Less money more term. A great D who played more seasons and was younger.

Orlov: $5.1 for 6. Less money and 1 more year. Probably not in the same class as Parayko but still a promising young D. Bought a lot of UFA years.

Rielly: $5 for 6. Top pairing D on a great contract. 1 more year for less AAV.

So you can quibble on the comparisons between Parayko and the above. Maybe Parayko compares more favorably (he definitely does for many), or we bought more UFA or whatever. However, there is a general trend of promising young Ds get sub-$5.5M for 6 years. We paid the top range for 5 years. I'd hardly call that a steal or the cap hit unreal.

The deal isn't a steal but very much fair for both sides. I honestly can't complain about this contract

 

[yogintheaveragebears]

toronto should have offersheeted him

 

[Dbrownss]

We are never going to hear that. And even if he was not open to it, we could complain that he was not open to it. Its a trend amongst our players that they are never open to it. Are Schwartz, Shattenkirk and PArayko just that much shrewder about setting themselves up for free-agency than all their comparables? Or maybe the common thread is DA and his desire to milk every penny of the cap to over-pay 3rd liners. Or maybe players just want to flee St. Louis. Either way it sucks. You see it one way. I see it another. You telling me there is no reason to complain because we don't have all the information has not stopped me from complaining before. Nor will it here.

I wouldn't complain about you complaining about his desire to overpay 3rd liners because you cant argue against the reality of the situation. Too many times does the narrative get spun into DA being a dolt that a common poster could out maneuver when a simple answer could be that beleive it or not....but the player does have a say in the matter.

On the mainboard, a random poster did lay out the contracts for the core. They end in different years, very manageable. He doesn't have to try and sign 2 large contracts in 1 year.

 

[Splatter]

 

[The Note]

toronto should have offersheeted him

The Blues would have just matched any reasonable offersheet so

 

[yogintheaveragebears]

The Blues would have just matched any reasonable offersheet so

tongue in cheek stupid internet