Some thoughts that have been percolating:
I read a recent article about the UFA class of 2016 and the horrible contracts. Its a record of broken dreams and roster dead weight (which includes David Backes). For whatever criticism Armstrong gets at times, he has not signed any albatross deals with guys on the order of those contracts. Allen is short enough term and still at least serviceable. We’ll find out on the Faulk deal, but he is currently in his prime age, so even if he’s overpaid it’s not like buying a guy who is already over the hill.
So, holding that thought, I was considering the RFA contracts that Toronto gave out. Less than max term and higher dollars than historical norms. They were designed to give those players another huge prime age contract. It makes sense to ask for that, but I can’t fathom how a GM concedes on both dollars AND term. But I think it’s inevitable that guys on other teams are going to insist on these types of deals too. We are bound to see more high profile holdouts as more savvy GMs figure out how to flex the team control back into the disturbed market. But I’ll be surprised if there aren’t more of these deals, for guys like Petterson, Makar, etc, the next generation of stars.
So, will GMs shift the compensation younger? Will they learn not to pay guys like Lucic and Backes as much, and start compensating younger players more? The thing that argues against this is the ‘R’ in RFA. Players have limited leverage. They can hold out, but they do so like pointing a gun at their own head to some degree, harming their career development if it goes too long.
Finally, I wondered what Armstrong’s starting point is for Pietro based on this market perturbation. The Josi contract probably sets the table pretty fairly. I’m just grateful the Blues aren’t one of those teams overpaying RFAs or UFAs. Armstrong’s model for building the team through the draft and trades has proven to look much more stable. And I still can’t understand what Dubas was thinking.
