Salary Cap: Binnington

[attackfan71]

Curious what do blues fans think Jordan Binnington get signed for with the season and playoffs he is having so far. I don’t believe he is a flash in the pan. I honestly seen him as an above avg (top15) starter going forward. Does he still have things to work on? Yes he does .... like being more explosive post to post. I notice he is weak on that and teams will expose it. But every goalie has a weakness. Love to hear people’s thoughts. I personally see a prove it contract of 2-3years around the 3.5 mil range.

Click to read more...

 

[JustJokinenAround]

it would have to be a prove it deal similar to what murray and vasy got who both have a bigger upside than binnington. he may be the real thing but paying him signficantly based on 40-45 games in dangerous. i can see where the binnington camp would say that he saved the season and could potenially get them to the finals. maybe it would be most to william karlsson, karlsson wanted multiple years and got a one year prove it, i could see binnington get something very similar. i would be shocked if binnington signs for anything more than 4 years.

 

[MissouriMook]

Curious what do blues fans think Jordan Binnington get signed for with the season and playoffs he is having so far. I don’t believe he is a flash in the pan. I honestly seen him as an above avg (top15) starter going forward. Does he still have things to work on? Yes he does .... like being more explosive post to post. I notice he is weak on that and teams will expose it. But every goalie has a weakness. Love to hear people’s thoughts. I personally see a prove it contract of 2-3years around the 3.5 mil range.

I think it will be a 3 year deal and will probably be something in the $2.5M range per year. Winning the Cup this year probably pushes the figure up to your $3.5M figure. They might even push it to $4M if he gets locked up for a 4th year. The closer we get to the finals, the more I see Matt Murray's deal being a comparable despite the fact that his has no UFA years, simply because it took Binny longer to get to that level of play.

 

[Brian39]

Murray got 3 years at $3.75 mil AAV after winning a Cup and posting a playoff SV% of .923. He posted a .930 through 13 regular season games that season and was just 22 years old. He had also won the AHL rookie of the year and goaltender of the year in 2014/15 with a .941 SV% and carried a .931 in the AHL the following season when he wasn't up with the Pens. His resume at the time was objectively better than Binny's, he was widely regarded as a top 5 goalie prospect before his Cup run, and the thought is that he still had unseen upside at 22 years old.

Binny needs to improve his playoff numbers and win the Cup (or at least get deep into the Final) if he wants a contract on par with Murray's.

I don't really think Vasi's contract is all that comparable. He signed it at 21 years old and it was almost entirely based on his draft pedigree and upside (which he has met). I don't know what meaningful comparisons can be made with a 26 year old who you're paying largely for NHL results.

Honestly, I think this topic is a bit premature. They are almost certainly not negotiating right now and his play between today and our last game of the season will greatly impact the final number. If he falls apart and costs us the series in the next 3-4 games, then the team probably won't be eager to give him term or an AAV much above $2 mil. If he finds yet another gear and leads the team to the Cup with a .920+ final SV% for the playoffs, then we're talking about a deal approaching Murrays. Any of the numerous possible scenarios in between those options leads to a change in the term/AAV offered.

In some universe where a deal had to be signed today, I'd wager that it would be 2 years at around $2.25 AAV. I don't think it gets much lower than that barring a complete collapse, but that AAV increases if he can improve his play a bit. I don't have an issue with his game right now, but it isn't the level it was a couple months ago. He's rocking a .911 SV% and a GSAA of -1.53 in the playoffs. I don't think those numbers quite accurately reflect his actual play, but they aren't completely lying. I think he is currently delivering solid goaltending for the Blues while elevating in high pressure situations. I'm happy with that, but that isn't quite what he was delivering a couple months ago. I want to see him raise those numbers a bit, at which point I'd be happy to up the term and AAV of "today's offer."

 

[CaliforniaBlues310]

I’d bet he gets a one year prove-it deal, seeing as he’s still gonna be a RFA next year. It’d likely be in the 2mil range IMO.

If he proves next year it’s not a fluke, then he’ll get a longer deal.

 

[MissouriMook]

@Brian39 I think your analysis was spot on. The only thing I would argue against is the idea of giving him a 2 year deal, covering only his last two RFA years and leaving him a UFA at the end. I think it will either be 1 year or 3, but I could see them giving him a 4th year if he brings home a Cup.

 

[Brian39]

@Brian39 I think your analysis was spot on. The only thing I would argue against is the idea of giving him a 2 year deal, covering only his last two RFA years and leaving him a UFA at the end. I think it will either be 1 year or 3, but I could see them giving him a 4th year if he brings home a Cup.

While I see your point about a 2 year deal, I honestly don't think the RFA/UFA distinction is all that important. If he is the real deal and is a legit starter next year, we will extend him in the summer of 2020. If not, then we are probably regretting the contract and looking to move on from him any way. I think the 2 year deal is the best mix of offering financial security to the player without handcuffing the team if year 2 sees heavy regression. IMO, the risk avoided on a 2 year deal over a 3 offsets the potential risk of taking him right up to UFA. I just don't believe we ever get close to him hitting UFA if he plays how we are hoping next season.

 

[Alklha]

I'd be surprised if it is anything other than a one year deal.

A two year deal takes him to UFA. If he was to perform strongly next season then we'd still be in a position where we'd be talking extension next summer. Also, the benefit of the two year deal is you hope we get a nice cap hit in 2020/21 as well, but there isn't a need for that. If Binnington plays well next season then Allen only has a year on his deal and I doubt there will be a huge problem in moving him to create some space. The risk/reward isn't really there.

The time to get a 3 year deal was back when the Blackhawks signed Delia to a 3 year deal at $1m. I believe he had better numbers than Binnington at that point and was in a similar contract situation. We should have offered a three year deal at the maximum value contract that can be buried without penalty, which I think is $1.15m, and see if he'd have taken that. Easy to say he wouldn't, but he hasn't earned huge money in his career and would be getting money to potentially set himself up for life on the back of a short sample size. That's passed now.

 

[Pizza!Pizza!]

A lot of reasonable posts in this thread, but when you consider the contract that Armstrong gave Jake Allen - I'm willing to bet Binny gets signed for 6 years @ 7.3m AAV, with full NMC.

 

[Brian39]

I'd be surprised if it is anything other than a one year deal.

A two year deal takes him to UFA. If he was to perform strongly next season then we'd still be in a position where we'd be talking extension next summer. Also, the benefit of the two year deal is you hope we get a nice cap hit in 2020/21 as well, but there isn't a need for that. If Binnington plays well next season then Allen only has a year on his deal and I doubt there will be a huge problem in moving him to create some space. The risk/reward isn't really there.

The time to get a 3 year deal was back when the Blackhawks signed Delia to a 3 year deal at $1m. I believe he had better numbers than Binnington at that point and was in a similar contract situation. We should have offered a three year deal at the maximum value contract that can be buried without penalty, which I think is $1.15m, and see if he'd have taken that. Easy to say he wouldn't, but he hasn't earned huge money in his career and would be getting money to potentially set himself up for life on the back of a short sample size. That's passed now.

I'd guess that the Blues made that offer, it got rejected and our traditionally-tight-lipped front office made sure it was never leaked. There is almost zero chance that there haven't been any contract talks during this run and the only way there haven't been is if Binny's camp flat out said "I'm not negotiating mid-season." I'd wager pretty good money that there were brief talks, both sides were pretty far away from each other and it was in everyone's interest to let the season play out. Unless Binny was eager to take one of those, "can make you financially stable for life, but could likely be a big underpayment" contracts, then expanding the sample size was in everyone's interest. If he did want one of those deals, his agent would have reached out to the Blues and we would have been silly to not offer it. The most logical explanation is that he wasn't interested in that type of contract because he believed that he could earn himself more money.

I think a 3 year deal makes sense if he can bring his playoff numbers up and get us deep. If he can outplay Bishop (actually outplay him, not just play well enough for the Blues to win a series where we outplay the Stars) and then looks good in round 3, I think the sample size is big enough to merit a 3 year deal. But that is a lot of "what if."

 

[Kreegz2]

Does he still have things to work on? Yes he does .... like being more explosive post to post. I notice he is weak on that and teams will expose it. But every goalie has a weakness. Love to hear people’s thoughts.

I'm fine with Binnington's conservative lateral movement. He tracks the puck well and makes his movements with confidence and intention. We had to endure the exact opposite of that with Jake Allen the past few years. Jake was prone to blindly sliding and hoping to make a save after he lost track of the puck, often oversliding and getting beaten fairly easily. Binnginton's style inspires much more confidence in me.

 

[attackfan71]

My reasoning behind saying. 2-3 year deal at around 3.5mil Aav is this. First the term I don’t believe the blues want to go More then two but I think it is better for them to go 3 and buy a year of ufa. Now the reason behind the aav is this. 3.5 would put binnington as the 27th highest paid goalie in nhl and I think and would argue that over the next three years. binnington easily surpasses being the 27th best goalie in the league. He has put up good numbers at every level along the way. I don’t think you will see binnington ask for the moon but he is a confident young man who rightfully so believes in himself and it would cost the blues a lot more in the long term by signing him to only one year. Better to know exactly what you are paying your goalie tandem for 3 years rather then one year and cost the organization assets to rid yourself of Allen cause it cost more to sign binnington.

 

[Alklha]

I'd guess that the Blues made that offer, it got rejected and our traditionally-tight-lipped front office made sure it was never leaked. There is almost zero chance that there haven't been any contract talks during this run and the only way there haven't been is if Binny's camp flat out said "I'm not negotiating mid-season." I'd wager pretty good money that there were brief talks, both sides were pretty far away from each other and it was in everyone's interest to let the season play out. Unless Binny was eager to take one of those, "can make you financially stable for life, but could likely be a big underpayment" contracts, then expanding the sample size was in everyone's interest. If he did want one of those deals, his agent would have reached out to the Blues and we would have been silly to not offer it. The most logical explanation is that he wasn't interested in that type of contract because he believed that he could earn himself more money.

I think a 3 year deal makes sense if he can bring his playoff numbers up and get us deep. If he can outplay Bishop (actually outplay him, not just play well enough for the Blues to win a series where we outplay the Stars) and then looks good in round 3, I think the sample size is big enough to merit a 3 year deal. But that is a lot of "what if."

You might be right, but it would be a surprise given how Armstrong typically deals with RFA's. He is all about them proving themselves, and Allen is the only one he just handed something to. While the low cap hit isn't an issue, I'm not sure he'd have offered 3 years on the back of a handful of performances to a player he flat out told wasn't in our plans a few months earlier.

Either way, we're beyond that scenario now.

Whether or not a three year deal makes sense will depend on the cap hit and our plans with Jake Allen. If it's $2.5m for three years? I think we'd go for that. $3.5m? That starts making less sense, unless we're moving Allen.

 

[Zamadoo]

I think Army makes offers such as 1/$3m, 2/$2.75, 3/$2.5m, and 4/$2.25. Binny is at least a backup, so the $2.25 doesn't hurt the Blues over 4 years, plus $13m over two RFA and two UFA years is pretty good for him. He might also choose to take that $3m and bet on himself for a much larger contract.

 

[542365]

I highly doubt Army is in a hurry to give long term big money to a relatively unproven goalie again. I'd be surprised if it was anything more than a year.

 

[PiggySmalls]

With Binnington having arbitration rights. I can see him filing to try to get the most out money. Blues try to get a one year prove it deal done to keep the cost low. Depending on how deep the Blues go, it’s just more ammunition for Binnington to use in negotiations.

 

[Vladys Gumption]

I think Army makes offers such as 1/$3m, 2/$2.75, 3/$2.5m, and 4/$2.25. Binny is at least a backup, so the $2.25 doesn't hurt the Blues over 4 years, plus $13m over two RFA and two UFA years is pretty good for him. He might also choose to take that $3m and bet on himself for a much larger contract.

If we’re buying up UFA years the AAV is most definitely going up, not down.

I’m with the guys that are thinking a one year deal. My guess would be 1 year at about 2 million.

 

[attackfan71]

If we’re buying up UFA years the AAV is most definitely going up, not down.

I’m with the guys that are thinking a one year deal. My guess would be 1 year at about 2 million.

You have unproven backups making a million plus a year and you think binnington will sign for 2 mil on a one year contract. Not a chance. And I wouldn’t blame him for holding the blues hostage on this after the way they treated him. Lots of teams would love a young up and coming goalie. Remember binnington actual holds the cards in this negotiation. The blues didn’t save him he saved the blues. And the team started playing better having confidence in their goalie.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

With Binnington having arbitration rights. I can see him filing to try to get the most out money. Blues try to get a one year prove it deal done to keep the cost low. Depending on how deep the Blues go, it’s just more ammunition for Binnington to use in negotiations.

This. I've said that with Binnington holding arbitration rights, Armstrong would be an idiot to try and lowball him in contract negotiations. If he didn't go shopping for an offer sheet first, Binnington's agent would drag the Blues in, point to records before/after and how the team hitched their wagon to the guy for the playoffs and he took them however far - and at this point, has as many wins in a postseason as Jake Allen with whatever's left of the postseason to better that - and then point to what other RFA's got for their next contract for accomplishing less.

There's no way he gets only $2 million per. If he wasn't arbitration-eligible, maybe - but with arbitration potentially in play, I think his comparable is probably up near $3 million, and depending on how far he carries the Blues it just pushes up the price tag that much more.

 

[Vladys Gumption]

You have unproven backups making a million plus a year and you think binnington will sign for 2 mil on a one year contract. Not a chance. And I wouldn’t blame him for holding the blues hostage on this after the way they treated him. Lots of teams would love a young up and coming goalie. Remember binnington actual holds the cards in this negotiation. The blues didn’t save him he saved the blues. And the team started playing better having confidence in their goalie.

He’s an RFA with 30 games of NHL experience. He doesn’t have a ton of leverage. No GM in their right mind is going to throw a brinks truck at him. The whole point of going one year is that it’s a prove 2019 wasn’t a fluke year.

 

[Zamadoo]

If we’re buying up UFA years the AAV is most definitely going up, not down.

I’m with the guys that are thinking a one year deal. My guess would be 1 year at about 2 million.

I agree that Binny would ask for more to include UFA years, which is why I don't think a contract with much term is likely (but at the current stage, the Blues aren't in a position to offer higher aav). I would predict 1y/$2-3m considering arbitration as well.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

He’s an RFA with 30 games of NHL experience. He doesn’t have a ton of leverage. No GM in their right mind is going to throw a brinks truck at him. The whole point of going one year is that it’s a prove 2019 wasn’t a fluke year.

His leverage is being able to go to arbitration.

In arbitration, both sides are pointing to what other RFAs got and arguing they're comparable contracts. Saying "it's just one year, how do we know it wasn't a fluke?" sounds great, and it might be a totally valid point, but an arbitrator is going to look at what all those other one-year fluke guys got and render a verdict accordingly unless you've got a really good argument as to why "this time is different from all those." The deeper this team goes through the postseason, the worse that argument gets for the Blues unless they're winning games 6-4 because Binnington is lousy in net [which still begs the question, "if you thought he was bad why didn't you go back to Allen?" which hangs the Blues by the balls, because everyone knows why the Blues aren't going back to Allen unless it's out of pure desperation].

It's why I lobbed out potential comparable contracts for Binnington a while back and said that anyone thinking he'd only get $1 million or so - max $1.5 million - were deluding themselves. I mean, maybe Binnington is going to be totally gracious and take a huge discount this offseason, but after DA stuck him at $650K [which was actually a small decrease from his potential NHL salary the year prior, though with a $25K bump on the minor league salary] and left him in the minors without even a sniff of a chance to compete for the back-up spot, ... well, if I'm him I'm grabbing every dollar and then some.

 

[Brian39]

His leverage is being able to go to arbitration.

In arbitration, both sides are pointing to what other RFAs got and arguing they're comparable contracts. Saying "it's just one year, how do we know it wasn't a fluke?" sounds great, and it might be a totally valid point, but an arbitrator is going to look at what all those other one-year fluke guys got and render a verdict accordingly unless you've got a really good argument as to why "this time is different from all those." The deeper this team goes through the postseason, the worse that argument gets for the Blues unless they're winning games 6-4 because Binnington is lousy in net [which still begs the question, "if you thought he was bad why didn't you go back to Allen?" which hangs the Blues by the balls, because everyone knows why the Blues aren't going back to Allen unless it's out of pure desperation].

It's why I lobbed out potential comparable contracts for Binnington a while back and said that anyone thinking he'd only get $1 million or so - max $1.5 million - were deluding themselves. I mean, maybe Binnington is going to be totally gracious and take a huge discount this offseason, but after DA stuck him at $650K [which was actually a small decrease from his potential NHL salary the year prior, though with a $25K bump on the minor league salary] and left him in the minors without even a sniff of a chance to compete for the back-up spot, ... well, if I'm him I'm grabbing every dollar and then some.

Arbitration is notoriously team friendly process and length of NHL service is a huge component.

What "one year fluke" comparables are you referring to? I can't think of any such comparables of the top of my head, but you seem pretty confident that there are a number of big contracts given out to one year flukes. I can't think of a single rookie goalie that has ever gone to arbitration, but I could certainly be forgetting guys.

The closest thing I can think of is Andrew Hammond. He got 3 years at $1.35 mil per year.

 

[PiggySmalls]

The closet potential arbitration award comparable with a goalie is from 2010 after Niemi at age 26 played 39 regular games and 22 playoff games. After backstopping the Hawks to a cup win, he was awarded $2.75 mil.

Even when Blues come up short on winning the cup. Adjusting for inflation and cap increase. I can see Binnington side asking 3.6-3.8 and Blues coming in at 2.2-2.4. Then bounce the numbers around until it reaches 3.25. So that would be my guess. One year @ 3.25.

Army has never been real good at goalie contracts. He gave Allen 2.3 in 2015 after 58 career games (regular and playoffs). Binnington will be at a minimum of 45 career games by the end of the playoffs.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Arbitration is notoriously team friendly process and length of NHL service is a huge component.

What "one year fluke" comparables are you referring to? I can't think of any such comparables of the top of my head, but you seem pretty confident that there are a number of big contracts given out to one year flukes. I can't think of a single rookie goalie that has ever gone to arbitration, but I could certainly be forgetting guys.

The closest thing I can think of is Andrew Hammond. He got 3 years at $1.35 mil per year.

I really wasn't thinking of any one-year flukes specifically, I was using the term generally as Vlady did. However, let's go through the one you cited along with a few others RFA comparables that jump to mind that I recall mentioning:

-- Hammond. He was headed for Group 6 free agency when he took that contract from the Senators. However, he was pretty clearly the backup guy there even after his 20-1-2 run and everyone - including him - knew it. His best bet was to try and hit the open market and hope someone would throw money at him; he took the security of the #2 spot in Ottawa.

-- Andrei Vasilevskiy, TB Got 3 years, $10.5 million on the back of 40 regular season games and 7 playoff starts [6 from the 2016 conference finals when he got pressed into action after Bishop went down hurt]. His career RS stat line: 18-15-1, 2.60, .914. You can argue the Lightning were paying him for future potential - but he was still RFA, so it's still going to get brought up. Oh, and it kicked in a year later -

-- Matt Murray, PIT. 13 regular season games and a Cup turned into 3 years, $11.25 million ... which kicked in a year later after the Pens won the 2nd Cup with him backstopping the team. [Which you can safely bet would have driven the price tag higher.] If we end up celebrating big this summer, this is where Binnington's price tag starts.

-- Martin Jones, SJ. After going from LA to BOS to SJ in the span of 4 days, the Sharks gave him 3 years, $9 million on 7/1/15 for going 16-11-2, 1.99, .923 over parts of 2 seasons + 56 minutes of mop-up playoff duty in the 2014 playoffs.

-- Jake Allen, STL. Great RS stats [31-11-4, 2.33, .911 over parts of 2 seasons] and the 2015 playoff meltdown - and he still got 2 years, $4.7 million on 7/1/15. [Which, a year later after Brian Elliott carried us through the 2016 playoffs, saw Allen get rewarded with his current 4 years, $17.4 million which also potentially becomes a comparable to use since it was arguably also based on both potential and Allen being the unquestioned #1 in net.]

-- John Gibson, ANH. Coming off his ELC. Gibson got 3 years, $6.9 million on 9/21/15 for going 16-8-0, 2.45, .919 in the regular season and 0-2 in the playoffs in 2013. In other words, it was a "potential" signing ... which also applies to his contract that starts this upcoming season that sees him get 8 years, $51.2 million that really only includes votes for the Vezina in '15-16 [he was 7th for the Vezina and 7th for the Calder], 9-5 of the 10-7 the Ducks went in the 2017 playoffs, and the fact that he's the clear starter in net. Oh, and that new contract is also available to use as a comparable since Gibson would still have been RFA when it starts.

That's the list of comparables I see. [I think it's quasi-limited to the current CBA, and I think Bishop's 2013 deal isn't comparable because he hadn't played in the NHL postseason when he signed that one.] Plus, none of those contracts were handed down in arbitration. "Best case" you get Jake Allen I, which is still $2.35 million per and I can't see that given Binnington has better RS stats and has already done significantly more in the postseason than Allen had at that point in time. Worst case, he's Jake Allen II to Gibson and you're looking at well over $4 million and into the $5 million range. It's why I keep landing in the $3M range with the chance for it to go up depending on how the playoffs go.