Confirmed with Link: Victor Rask signs 6 years, 4 per

[NotOpie]

I'm fine with Gold's general point, just the article wasn't very well written and had some statements and inconsistency (like when he says Skinner is underperforming and then in the very next sentence, says Skinner will be due a raise).

His general point was: "Why not give Rask a cheaper bridge deal until he's more proven, and then spend more money now on an impact player upfront." He also acknowledges that if Rask keeps improving, it's going to be a good deal. Not an unreasonable assertion, just a poorly written article around that reasonable point.

Also, I suspect he's trying to purposely be a bit provocative on this for this exact reason, so people will talk about it.

I actually didn't have a problem with the argument that he was making, I just didn't agree that with the premise that the term was overly risky. As I said in my tweets, I think that is a very logical thing to actually buffer the future contract impacts. We don't want to be negotiating with Skinner, Rask, Hanifin, and Lindholm in the same year (exaggeration, but you get my point).

And there's no doubt that he wanted to be provocative. While everybody else is praising the deal, he puts out a "just wait a doggone minute" piece that's sure to attract attention. It matches his needlessly negative approach in my opinion.

 

[DaveG]

If he's a 3rd liner 4 mil sucks? Sure. Thankfully he's not a 3rd liner, he's a 2nd liner and produces like a 2nd liner already just 2 NHL seasons in to his career.

 

[NotOpie]

If he's a 3rd liner 4 mil sucks? Sure. Thankfully he's not a 3rd liner, he's a 2nd liner and produces like a 2nd liner already just 2 NHL seasons in to his career.

Not to mention, line play is immaterial in today's NHL. What counts is production. If Rask is producing 50+ points from the 3rd line he's still worth $4 million +.

 

[Anton Babchuk]

it's pretty obvious that gold is stuck in 2006 and hasn't paid attention to how much salaries have inflated and how much scoring has gone down. $4M is too much for 50-65 points? 48 points is third line production?

it's an absolute joke that this clown is taken seriously by anyone in this market.

 

[Vagrant]

Sidebar, but doesn't it seem like our whole society at this point is based more on being noticed than being right? Eckland did the same trash. Instagram celebrities, hot taeks, and clickbait. This generation is doomed.

/oldman

 

[Roboturner913]

6 years is too much risk? How so? He's 23 years old, he's never been injury prone, he's doesn't play the type of game that will age him prematurely. If he plays out the entire contract averaging 20 goals and 45 points it will have been well worth it. And if by some bizarre happenstance, Aho, Lindholm, Roy and etc all blow up and make Rask a spare part (as Gold says might happen) he will be really easy to trade.

 

[tarheelhockey]

it's pretty obvious that gold is stuck in 2006 and hasn't paid attention to how much salaries have inflated and how much scoring has gone down.

It wouldn't surprise me if in six years, $4M is the going rate for a 3C.

If that turns out to be the case, there will be virtually no downside to this contract.

 

[bleedgreen]

Shoulder injuries have a tendency to be nagging. That's the only thing im really worried about with Rask. If that becomes recurring it could impede his progress. Otherwise I think it's a calculated risk. If he stays around where he is then he's paid right, if he improves we did really well. I don't know if I see a higher level with Rask but he seems capable of replicating this season.

 

[Ole Gil]

It wouldn't surprise me if in six years, $4M is the going rate for a 3C.

If that turns out to be the case, there will be virtually no downside to this contract.

This 3C stuff is dumb.

http://www.rotoworld.com/teams/depth-charts/nhl.aspx

The 3C's in the league are putting up 25 points. The good 3C's are putting up 35.

If Victor Rask stays in his role and puts up close to 50, he may be far and away the best 3C in the league.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Even though, as I said, I think Gold's overall point isn't unreasonable (ie..sign a bridge deal for less and go after some more talent), the "3C" part is what I don't get.

However, if he stays as a player best-suited for a 3rd line role — or worse, under-performs his contract like Jeff Skinner has — then the deal doesn’t work.
....
Of course, as I said earlier, if Rask takes another step forward into a certain top six role, this is a bargain.

If he doesn’t, if Rask is passed by up-and-comers Sebastian Aho, Julian Gauthier, Nicolas Roy or Teravainen, or if Elias Lindholm ever figures out how to marry his skill and intelligence with his fitness and desire — all great developments should they happen — Rask’s will end up being a contract that won’t fit the salary structure of this organization sooner rather than later.

If Victor Rask stays as he is right now and has to be relegated to the 3rd line, and other prospects surpass him, then this team is going to be in VERY good shape up front and either (a) $4M isn't going to be an issue or (b) they can trade him. Like Bleed, I'm a little concerned about his shoulder injury (without knowing what the issue is), but I'm guessing the Canes have done enough due diligence on that. Since he has been rehabbing all summer, will be interesting to see if it affected his training and his early season performance though.

 

[tarheelhockey]

This 3C stuff is dumb.

http://www.rotoworld.com/teams/depth-charts/nhl.aspx

The 3C's in the league are putting up 25 points. The good 3C's are putting up 35.

If Victor Rask stays in his role and puts up close to 50, he may be far and away the best 3C in the league.

I agree... I'm just saying, even if a worst-case scenario happens and Rask regressed and actually settled in as a 3C, even then I bet $4M wouldn't raise eyebrows by the end of this contract.

 

[Ole Gil]

Yeah, I wasn't disagreeing with you. Just the initial framing of the 3C argument as a whole.

It's like saying Kevin McHale was overpaid because he was the 6th man.

I think that link I posted really highlights how far off people's estimations of depth in the NHL are.

 

[My Special Purpose]

Even though, as I said, I think Gold's overall point isn't unreasonable (i.e. sign a bridge deal for less and go after some more talent), the "3C" part is what I don't get.

Like who? If Rask gets a 2 year/$4.5 million bridge deal, that's an extra $3.5 million over two years to spend. That's really what we're talking about here? We couldn't bring back a broken down Tuomo Ruutu for that. The difference is small now, with the potential to be huge -- in the team's favor -- in years 3-4-5-6, when the difference between what we're paying Rask and what he's worth *could* be a lot more.

It's a case of Gold being penny-wise but pound foolish.

 

[NotOpie]

It's a case of Gold being foolish.

Fixed

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Like who? If Rask gets a 2 year/$4.5 million bridge deal, that's an extra $3.5 million over two years to spend. That's really what we're talking about here? We couldn't bring back a broken down Tuomo Ruutu for that. The difference is small now, with the potential to be huge -- in the team's favor -- in years 3-4-5-6, when the difference between what we're paying Rask and what he's worth *could* be a lot more.

It's a case of Gold being penny-wise but pound foolish.

The way I was interpreting it, was Gold was suggesting that RF should have spent more in Free Agency period (or via trade) to go after a bigger fish and get more talent with the knowledge that he'd spend less on a bridge deal. Not 1 for one, but for example, take the money saved from a Rask bridge deal and pool that with what was given to Stempniak add a little more and now you have $5+M to spend. Obviously it's all theoretical and there's nobody left now, but I think that's what Gold was suggesting.

And for the record, I'm don't agree with Gold, I'm just saying that position isn't a totally unreasonable position to take. The rest of the article and his other points are terrible though (as I said earlier). I actually like the contract as it has a lot of upside potential to be a very good bargain and not much downside. As I said, even if Rask is surpassed by some of these other prospects, it will mean the Canes are in very good shape offensively.

 

[RodTheBawd]

That line of thinking is built on the premise that Rask would sign a bridge deal.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

That line of thinking is built on the premise that Rask would sign a bridge deal.

Oh, yes, of course that's the case. And it's built on the premise that RF would be able to attract/trade for a better talent as well which isn't a given. Like I said, I don't agree with Gold, but don't think that position is overly unreasonable, that's all.

 

[NotOpie]

The way I was interpreting it, was Gold was suggesting that RF should have spent more in Free Agency period (or via trade) to go after a bigger fish and get more talent with the knowledge that he'd spend less on a bridge deal. Not 1 for one, but for example, take the money saved from a Rask bridge deal and pool that with what was given to Stempniak add a little more and now you have $5+M to spend. Obviously it's all theoretical and there's nobody left now, but I think that's what Gold was suggesting.

And for the record, I'm don't agree with Gold, I'm just saying that position isn't a totally unreasonable position to take. The rest of the article and his other points are terrible though (as I said earlier). I actually like the contract as it has a lot of upside potential to be a very good bargain and not much downside. As I said, even if Rask is surpassed by some of these other prospects, it will mean the Canes are in very good shape offensively.

Yeah, my problem with what Adam Gold wrote was more about not looking at the complexities of the out years. Giving Rask a bridge only to have him perform up to a $5 million plus level (50-55 points in today's NHL) would be significantly more costly when trying to negotiate all the future contracts that we have. Even if Rask does nothing but stagnate at the level he currently attained, we're paying at value. I don't get the concern for the term at all. It was the best part of the deal.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

Oh, yes, of course that's the case. And it's built on the premise that RF would be able to attract/trade for a better talent as well which isn't a given. Like I said, I don't agree with Gold, but don't think that position is overly unreasonable, that's all.

His position isn't unreasonable.

His arguing that other positions are unreasonable is what's unreasonable.

Of course, what else is new, right? Hot takery is his job.

 

[Roboturner913]

Even if Rask does nothing but stagnate at the level he currently attained, we're paying at value. I don't get the concern for the term at all. It was the best part of the deal.

ditto.

I mean, seriously, what's the risk? He could blow out a knee and end his career, but that could happen to anybody. This is not like signing Ladd or Backes to a 7-year-deal. He's 23 years old, and even if he doesn't get any better, inflation alone makes this is bargain 3 years from now. Maybe sooner.

 

[Vagrant]

I think it's also worth evaluating that RFA value and UFA value are slowly merging regardless of player age. I think the NHL is the last league where players wait around to get paid. Entry level contracts for hockey players are probably the worst among any professional sport and the idea of putting in the work in the league before getting paid is becoming more and more absurd as the climate of pro sports changes. Plus, holding out for a contract isn't nearly as stigmatized as it once was. Demanding a trade isn't either. They're still pretty taboo, but they're not career ruiners anymore. All of those factors are working towards RFA players having more options than they did in the country club days when RFA years were cost controlled by the pressure to shut up and take the 10% increase, rookie.

Shorter form, "bridge contracts" are a dying breed. In some ways, it's betting against the player and is interpreted as such. Not exactly how you'd treat an asset you'd like to keep. Acting like Victor Rask would be an automatic to sign here again in 2 years for reasonable money without it being a whole thing if he breaks out is foolish. The smart GM's are getting out in front of it and betting correctly on a lot of these guys.

 

[bleedgreen]

You're right but if a few guys fall on their faces after two seasons out of six over the next few years, it'll be interesting to see if there's pushback against these kinds of deals.

With Rask I agree with the thought that even if he doesn't improve it isn't a bad price. Only gets bad if he's hurt I think.

 

[Stickpucker]

I guess it depends on the orders from on high. If PK is saying "Spend less than 50m this year" sure. But if the team had a budget similar to years past, where 61m was an option, and this is the best he come up with, that's sort of lousy.

Maybe some of that 11m is being invested in scouting and development rather than the roster?

 

[Unsustainable]

This is still an amazing deal on Rask

 

[CandyCanes]

This is still an amazing deal on Rask

This will always be an amazing deal through the life of the contract.