I Guess I don't understand the overall point you are making.
You seem to be arguing that Faulk, Schenn and potentially 8 years to Petro set us up for a cliff fall in 3-5 years and that we should instead aspire to be like Boston. But what were are doing is very, very much in line with the Boston model. Schenn at $6.5 mil AAV is a substantially lesser commitment to our 2nd best, late 20s center than the Bruins made in Krecji. Whatever we give Petro on an 8 year deal will be a lesser commitment than what the Bruins gave Chara. He came in at 11.64% of the cap until he was 40. That would be the equivalent of $9.49 AAV to Petro, but a max term deal takes Petro to 38.
The Bruins model is predicated on these long, big money deals holding their value as players hit their mid-30s. The Bruins model is gambling that these contracts get you a discount AAV in the short term and that the players are good enough into their mid-30s that the window doesn't close. That's the exact gamble the Blues are taking, so I'm not quite sure what you want to see the Blues do here.
I'm legitimately not trying to be sarcastic or feign confusion. I think I'm misunderstanding your overall point and am looking for a bit of clarity.
I don’t have a specific point. I am not trying to pick a side or win an argument. It’s just an interesting discussion. There are distinct pros and cons to the approach.
More or less, I am saying that we could go the way of Detroit or Boston, possibly somewhere in between or even outside those posts.
We are hedging bets on the short-term and the long-term. In the short, that this team will be able to achieve more great things. A pretty safe bet there. How great? Who knows, but it will be exciting to see. Some of that depends on their peaks and some on their longevity. We can’t know how that plays out, but short-term? It’s probably safe to assume we will enjoy the results, unless our expectations are “the Cup or nothing”.
In the long-term, we are hoping that players are more or less useful throughout most of their contracts. Those odds are not as great. If you take the aggregate of NHL players, the risk is high in the later half of the timeline. Elite players tend to fair better. There are also rare breeds within that group. Chara is a rare physical specimen, as was Jagr. Both brought things outside of their physique as well. Being a multidimensional, elite talent and not heavily relying on things that deteriorate puts those guys in a distinguished class. Even as those guys lose effectiveness, they are still really good. How many of those types do we have?
Vladi is elite, but if his shot goes then his usefulness will fall. Maybe he can be like Ovie and hang on. (In all fairness to the comparison, Ovie is generational.) You can not lose him short-term, but long-term? I am just not sure how confident I am with him up for a contract in 4 years at age 31. I guess we have time to see.
ROR is certainly elite defensively and that seems to age well. He is a good offensive player that doesn’t rely on speed or skills to score. His smarts and work ethic do the heavy lifting. I think he generally ages like Bergeron who plays a similar game. We have four years to figure the approach with him. So punt, like Vladi, I guess.
Schwartz is close to elite. He is strong defensively and a very intelligent offensive talent. But his game does rely on speed. He could make adjustments and wear ok. His small frame might not wear well, but who knows. He has been an absolute critical part of the team like the guys above.
Petro is certainly elite. I think he ages well. He is smart, positions himself well and generally doesn’t rely on things that tend to falloff after 30. He should be a lock.
Paryko is elite defensively and strong offensively. His game is built on his size. Reach, length of stride and shielding using your frame don’t tend to change without really bad injuries.
After that group we still have some pretty good players...
Faulk isn’t a guy I would hedge a bet long-term. He is a talent, but certainly behind the elite tier. He is already fairly slow, his offensive game is largely shot based and his defending is just ok. Defensemen that age well usually seem to be stout defensively. With all that in mind, I think Seattle choosing him is probably Army’s goal.
Schenn is a fine player and has been an important one. He plays a hard game. We know that can take a toll. Seemingly he doesn’t break, so maybe he is an outlier there.
Schenn was probably our 6 most important player on offense in the playoffs. I am not including defensemen in that, just forwards. The reason I bring that up is to segue into a few questions and some following thoughts.
How many long-term contracts can you have ending past a player’s prime? If you want to try to limit that number to manage the long game, how do you want to disperse those contracts? Honestly, in an ideal situation, I would want only my elites to have those contracts. The Seabrook and Backes quality players would concern me a bit. They are a step below. Are guys like Schenn and Faulk in that category? I would have to say yes. That’s why I would bring them up as possible offloads or anchors.
