Salary Cap: Binnington

[simon IC]

I think we should trade him. Apparently, he's a fascist.

 

[Brian39]

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.

I appreciate the time you put in, but age is the obvious differentiator between Binny and a lot of these bigger contracts.

Vasy: 21 and 11 months at contract signing
Murray: 22 and 5 months at contract signing
Gibson: 22 and 3 months at contract signing. I vehemently disagree that Gibson's current deal is remotely a comparable. He had 197 NHL starts over 4 NHL seasons and a regular season career SV% of .923 when he signed that contract. Binny will have less than 30% of that career NHL experience by the end of this summer and less than 25% of that unless we play another 9 playoff games.

Jones: 25 and 5 months at contract signing
Allen: 24 and 10 months at contract signing. (The $2.35 AAV one). I strongly disagree that his current contract is a comparable since it is based on 3 years and 97 NHL starts of experience.

For comparison, Binny is currently 25 and 10 months of age with 40 NHL games of experience.

Vasy, Murray, and Gibson's NHL experience all came at a much younger age and were based as much or more on potential than existing performance. A 3-4 year age gap is a very, very compelling difference in comparables. Binny's NHL numbers are great, but his pedestrian AHL stats until he was 25 are a factor if you want to compare contracts given to 22 year olds who were considered top prospects in the couple years prior.

I agree that he isn't gettin $1-$1.5 mil, but the 2 age-similar comparables you gave were $2.35-$3 mil AAV, which is far from the huge leverage you are implying or the $4+ mil you are concerned about.

Other comparables:
Raanta got 2 years at $1 mil AAV at 26 with 52 career starts

Grubauer got 3 years at $3.33 AAV this summer as a 26.5 year old, but also had 82 career starts, a .923 career SV%. He got a 1 year, $1.5 mil before that with 52 games of NHL experience as a 25 year old.

Talbot got 1 year at $1.45 AAV after posting a .946 as a 26 year old rookie with the Rangers as their backup (plus the first couple months of his 27 year old season where he posted a .921).

I think he is somewhere in the $2-3 mil range via arbitration. His resume this year is better than a lot of comparables, but his career resume isn't as strong as a lot of them. A lot of widely regarded goalies in their mid-20s got $1-$1.5 mil prove it deals when they had around 50 games of NHL experience. His accomplishment this season will put him above that number, but those are valid comparables that should keep him well below $3 mil on a 1 year arbitration award. His arbitration leverage is almost certainly not anything more than $2.5 mil and there is a chance it is lower than that. It absolutely won't be a number that scares the Blues into overpaying him.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Raanta's contract came with him at UFA, so it's not a comparable for use in arbitration. (Only RFA contracts can be considered.) Same thing with Talbot. You have to throw both of those out.

Grubauer's new contract could get used, and Binnington's camp could point to his playoff success vs. Grubauer's lack of it and Colorado also paying for future expectations. Again, that doesn't help the Blues.

Finally: arguing Binnington couldn't make it to the NHL until 25 ignores that between Elliott and Allen and even Armstrong's admitted lack of trust and inability to evaluate goalies, he was never getting a shot. You have to look at actual stats. Arguing age for those comparables might be a point, but I don't think it helps the Blues any.

He wins 2 more games, and the arguments for why he shouldn't get $3 million per get a hell of a lot tougher. If Allen gets moved before any hearing, I think it speaks volumes and again doesn't help the Blues' position at all.

 

[Zamadoo]

"Hey, it's the playoffs."

 

[Brian39]

Finally: arguing Binnington couldn't make it to the NHL until 25 ignores that between Elliott and Allen and even Armstrong's admitted lack of trust and inability to evaluate goalies, he was never getting a shot. You have to look at actual stats. Arguing age for those comparables might be a point, but I don't think it helps the Blues any.

He wins 2 more games, and the arguments for why he shouldn't get $3 million per get a hell of a lot tougher. If Allen gets moved before any hearing, I think it speaks volumes and again doesn't help the Blues' position at all.

First, that is absolutely speculative and not hard evidence. Second, none of that falls into any category of admissible evidence. You clearly feel that Binny wasn't given a fair shot by the Blues, but "the GM undervalued me" is not evidence. The player has to provide data about why the GM undervalued him. Furthermore, the idea that he wasn't given a fair shot is not based in reality. He was consistently outperformed by his competition.

You are correct that you have to look at actual stats. His career AHL SV% of .915 over 164 games is a stat that will be presented at an arbitration hearing. The fact that it was .912 through 2016/17 (the time he is arguing he was unfairly passed over) will be presented. That's less impressive than every comparable. If the arbitrator grants Binny's rep some leeway and allows him to argue that an "unfair logjam prevented him from getting a fair shot" then the Blues will be able to respond about how Allen's AHL numbers were better than Binny's ECHL numbers in 2013/14. Allen posted a .928 in the AHL in 2013/14 and then got promoted to the NHL. There is zero argument that Binny should have gotten the NHL job on merit in 2014/15 after spending 2013/14 in the ECHL. Binny's 2014/15 AHL numbers were fine (.916) but nothing that suggested he was NHL ready. He then posted an AHL .907 the next season and a .911 over 32 AHL starts in 2016/17. He was noticeably outperformed by both Copley and Husso in the AHL that season.

There is no fact-based argument that Binny was unfairly kept out of the NHL by 24. He was a middling AHL goalie that was (properly) somewhere between 3rd and 5th on the depth chart. He would have been in that same spot on just about every organization. He was repeatedly outperformed by his internal competition and the stats of his mediocre performance are all admissible in arbitration. 2017/18 was the first time he showed any indication of being an NHL caliber goaltender and even then he was posting good stats in the backup role in the AHL. He then continued playing well in 2018/19 and was promoted midway through the season. One and a half years of good AHL play is right on par with the amount of time needed to earn an NHL callup, especially after 3 years of 'not good enough' AHL play.

The argument that he just never got a chance to make it to the NHL before 25 is a losing one if the arbitrator even allows it in the first place (which he shouldn't). AHL stats are absolutely relevant in arbitration and will be presented. His resume in his early 20s is woefully behind the comparables above the $2.5 mil AAV range.

Martin Jones tore up the AHL in his early 20s.

Matt Murray tore up the AHL in his early 20s.

Vasilevski's 20 year old AHL season was right on par with Binny's 21 year old AHL season (both of them were AHL rookies that year). However, Vasi also spent half his time in the NHL that year and posted a .918. Next season, when Binny stumbled hard, Vasi posted a .935 in the AHL while also spending time as a backup in Tampa.

Gibson spent 3 partial seasons in the AHL and posted better numbers in all 3 than Binny ever did prior to 2017/18.

Every one of those guys either had posted or was posting a .925 or better in the AHL when they got the promotion to the NHL. Prior to 2017/18, Binny never exceeded .916 and that was followed up by a .907 in the year that he should have been taking the next step and demonstrating that he was ready to make someone expendable.

Binnington's resume prior to 25 is not good. His resume in the last year+ is fantastic. All of that gets presented at an arbitration hearing and his argument that he was unfairly held back does not have any merit. The arbitration rules are not favorable to him. Every comparable at or above $3 mil has a dramatically longer track record of success AND that $3 mil AAV purchased multiple years instead of being a 1 year award. The similarly aged comparables purchased UFA years too.

If I were his agent, I'd be advising him that his arbitration leverage is likely an award of $2.5 with a 'realistic best case scenario' around $3 mil on a 1 year deal. Given his playoff numbers (which I believe don't reflect his actual play, but are what they are), that only has a chance to improve if he starts playing dramatically better.

Barring a tangible uptick in his playoff performance and/or a Cup/Conn win, his arbitration leverage is pretty unlikely to strike much fear into the Blues, especially since we have plenty of cap space next year and could easily manage a high arbitration award that we don't expect.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

1. Armstrong has openly admitted he's terrible about evaluating goalies and all but confessed he wasn't giving anyone in the organization a chance when he signed Chad Johnson on July 1.

2. Bishop didn't tear up the AHL until his 4th year there, by which time Elliott and Halak were cemented as 1/2 in some fashion. That was also at age 25, and Bishop was cruising for Group 6 UFA status. The only difference between the two situations is that Binnington had put up stellar play a year earlier on a different AHL team and he wasn't blocked from an NHL chance here by solid NHL goaltending.

3. AHL performance isn't something that can be dragged into arbitration. It's all about NHL performance - and Binnington had put together a hell of a case for himself. The Blues can argue it's a massive one-off and Binnington can say it's a sign of things to come; neither one is provable, thus neither of us admissible. You have to rely on the facts that exist.

4. It's not about whether the Blues will have cap space to absorb whatever award. They will. It's about what Binnington could likely get in arbitration, and I'm telling you $3 million isn't a stretch at all.

 

[Brian39]

1. Armstrong has openly admitted he's terrible about evaluating goalies and all but confessed he wasn't giving anyone in the organization a chance when he signed Chad Johnson on July 1.

2. Bishop didn't tear up the AHL until his 4th year there, by which time Elliott and Halak were cemented as 1/2 in some fashion. That was also at age 25, and Bishop was cruising for Group 6 UFA status. The only difference between the two situations is that Binnington had put up stellar play a year earlier on a different AHL team and he wasn't blocked from an NHL chance here by solid NHL goaltending.

3. AHL performance isn't something that can be dragged into arbitration. It's all about NHL performance - and Binnington had put together a hell of a case for himself. The Blues can argue it's a massive one-off and Binnington can say it's a sign of things to come; neither one is provable, thus neither of us admissible. You have to rely on the facts that exist.

4. It's not about whether the Blues will have cap space to absorb whatever award. They will. It's about what Binnington could likely get in arbitration, and I'm telling you $3 million isn't a stretch at all.

Your first 2 points are squarely and completely not admissible. Full stop. They have zero bearing on an arbitration hearing. They are literally meaningless to the debate about his leverage via arbitration, even if Binny and his agent fully and completely believe them. They can not be presented as evidence and any argument related to that stuff would be objectionable and not considered by the arbitrator. There is no gray area there.

AHL performance is debatable. It is unclear from the CBA whether "overall performance" of the player in previous seasons is just limited to NHL performance or AHL performance as well. Since you can be eligible for arbitration with zero NHL experience, it would make little sense to interpret that language as just NHL performance as that would create a situation where neither side would be able to present any evidence whatsoever. Because AHL years are 'professional experience' towards earning arbitration rights, it makes absolutely not logical sense to believe that 'overall performance in past seasons' doesn't include years in the pro league that made you arbitration eligible. Additionally, the rules specifically state that "length of service in the League" is admissible evidence. This is important because 'the League' in the CBA refers directly to the NHL. Including that modifier in one section, but not the 'overall performance in previous seasons' section implies that overall performance is not just limited to NHL games. There would be absolutely no reason to include it in one section if there was an understanding that every section was only concerned with performance in the League. It is wholly inaccurate to say AHL performance can't be presented in arbitration by rule and all of the statutory construction leans towards allowing it.

If the arbitrator allows any AHL evidence, it hurts Binny's case. If he allows zero AHL evidence, it hurts Binny's case because then the entirety of evidence is a sample size that is significantly shorter than each and every comparable. Both sides would be precluded from mentioning anything that happened before he got to the NHL, so the Blues could hammer home that while his comparables were having successful NHL results, Binny was doing literally nothing relevant for the club. They would also be able to hammer home the point that out of the just 5 month sample we have, he was statistically below average for the last 2 months. Binny can't have it both ways where he can blame the Blues organization for holding him back but then avoid his negatives being pointed out diring the period where he was allegedly held back.

At the end of the day, the highest potential reasonable comparables are in the low 3s. Those comparables either buy UFA years or were given to goalies who are substantially younger than Binny and built their relevant resume when Binny was not in the league. Additionally, there is noting in the arbitration rules which states that the sides are limited to discussing just the resume before the contract was signed. The Blues can point to Vasilevski's stats from every year of his contract to say: "he made $3.5 mil as a 24 year old who had 150+ NHL starts and a 3rd place result in Vezina voting under his belt." Both of those factors chip away at the validity of the comparable and lead credibility to the Blues' argument about small sample size. The Blues will present a boatload of comparables of goalies with lesser accomplishments but similar sample sizes that are making around $1-$1.3 mil. Binny's side will chip away at the validity of those comparables and lead credibility to his argument. Since both sides are half right with their comparables, the arbitrator is likely to meet somewhere in the middle. Leaning in favor of Binny, you're looking at $2.5-$3 mil as a realistic range.

I agree that $3 mil isn't a stretch. It is the upper end of the likely range. My point is that the possibility of a $3 mil arbitration award does nothing to scare the Blues. That potential doesn't provide Binny with a whole lot of leverage. The Blues aren't going to give him a $3+ mill AAV multi year deal based on a potential $3 mil award in arbitration. If those are the 2 options, the Blues would happily take their chances at arbitration. If you view multi year deals with AAVs starting with a 2 as a low ball offer, then arbitration doesn't provide him much (if any) leverage. You referred to $4 or $5 mil in an earlier post, which would offer him leverage, but that number is not happening. Even a potential $3.5 mil arbitration award wouldn't worry the Blues much. That would be easy to fit into next year's cap. The reason that is relevant is because the advantage to the Blues is that it allows us to see a bigger sample size before committing a sizeable number to seasons where we have a cap crunch. $3.5 mil for one year and then another 40+ games of sample size is much safer than 3 years at $3+ mil AAV today. That's why such an arbitration award isn't much leverage for him: it would be good for the Blues too. If we can't get him at a "low ball" multi year deal that offers him greater financial security than a 1 year deal, then that potential arbitration scenario is fine for the Blues.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Obviously, the Blues aren't going to go in offering $3 million - but $3 million is a totally reasonably figure to expect in an award. If I'm Binnington, I might as well argue for $4 million or $5 million because there's comparables that potentially support it; you never go in arguing for what you think you're going to get - you go in arguing for something higher. And yes, the Blues are going to be able to afford whatever any award might be; I've never said anything that suggests they wouldn't.

So ... I'm trying to understand what you're disagreeing with here.

 

[Ranksu]

Can we afford to give 3millä.$ to Bunny IF Allen has ovet 4mill.$ contract as a backup?

 

[Xerloris]

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.

I mean did you see what Army gave Allen?

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Can we afford to give 3millä.$ to Bunny IF Allen has ovet 4mill.$ contract as a backup?

Yes, but it would underscore how monumentally dumb that contract for Allen was.

I mean did you see what Army gave Allen?

It wasn't based off a fluke season. It was first based off of parts of 2 seasons and a crappy playoff performance, and it was for future potential, then it was based off about 3 months and a playoff series and more future potential, so ..... it's all totally different.

 

[DeuceNine]

First, that is absolutely speculative and not hard evidence.

Telling part of the story is also a problem. I'd be looking at the team's overall defense and standing prior to evaluating an individual's performance. One team is not equivalent to the next. Also, I doubt an NHL arbitrator is going to just allow a strict numbers-based evaluation when EVERYONE in hockey relies on the eye test also. Intangibles are relevant and really, what happens this year will supersede all else. Just how it works.

I also doubt the Blues are going to come in and "try this case" thereby burning a bridge. He did more for the team than vice versa, and the team knows it.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I think someone's price tag for 2019-20 just went up a little more.

 

[Brockon]

Yeah, that's gotta be worth an extra 250k AAV for the next contract.

 

[The Winter Soldier]

That save on Benn. If the Blues win the Cup. That was the moment of destiny. Like when the Blue Jackets hit the post against the Caps last year from going up 3-0. You have to know something special is going on here. Wow.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

I think someone's price tag for 2019-20 just went up a little more.

Who the hell cares?

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Who the hell cares?

If he carries us to 8 more wins in this postseason, no one will.

 

[Brian39]

Yeah, that's gotta be worth an extra 250k AAV for the next contract.

Haha, my guess was $200k. Let's hope he keeps pushing that AAV up.

 

[attackfan71]

4 more wins by binnington and the blues reach the final. his contract becomes 4x4. How does anyone argue it doesn’t. Look at the facts Excellent numbers in the ahl his down year was a .907 save percentage. Lead nhl in gaa. I think he was Forth in save percentage. Top three finish in Calder trophy. Leads team to Stanley cup final making the saves needed to keep the team in every game. Does anyone really think the blues want him to be only signed for two years and walk into ufa.

 

[Xerloris]

4 more wins by binnington and the blues reach the final. his contract becomes 4x4. How does anyone argue it doesn’t. Look at the facts Excellent numbers in the ahl his down year was a .907 save percentage. Lead nhl in gaa. I think he was Forth in save percentage. Top three finish in Calder trophy. Leads team to Stanley cup final making the saves needed to keep the team in every game. Does anyone really think the blues want him to be only signed for two years and walk into ufa.

If we actually win the cup I wouldn't give a flying f*** if they give him 10m aav. I wouldn't give a single shit about anything after that.

 

[PiggySmalls]

Yeah if Binnington backstops the Blues to a parade down Market. I don’t give a f*** what he is re-signed for.