Confirmed with Link: Canucks qualify Baertschi, Clendenning, Corrado, Markstrom, Grenier

[DL44]

The two year deal beef is with anyone who thinks two years makes sense. It doesn't. There is no precedent for an AHL player getting a two year NHL deal.

Is this a fact, or are you guessing?

Edit... I see you were guessing.
Someone cited Tanner Pearson.

 

[arsmaster*]

Is this a fact, or are you guessing?

Edit... I see you were guessing.
Someone cited Tanner Pearson.

I'm asking. And Pearson had proven himself an NHL player at the time.

He performed on the first line on a cup winning team.

Not a comparable IMO.

 

[DL44]

I'm asking. And Pearson had proven himself an NHL player at the time.

He performed on the first line on a cup winning team.

Not a comparable IMO.

Then he was probably on the verge of getting demoted before he got hurt as he went ice cold and then got removed from the 70's line.

 

[arsmaster*]

Then he was probably on the verge of getting demoted before he got hurt as he went ice cold and then got removed from the 70's line.

This isn't a question for probablies.

Tanner Pearson didn't play in the AHL last season.

Baertschi did. Baertschi was an AHL player.

Once again. Find me a player who played the full season in the AHL who got a two year NHL deal after.

 

[biturbo19]

Would you be willing to commit mid/long-term to Baertschi after one good season?

Would you give up on Baertschi if he had a poor year?

Two years just makes sense.

I can see the merit in a 2-year deal, if you're really confident that he's going to perform well this year and you think you can get that 2nd year at "below value" based on that.

But then even in that case, i wonder on the wisdom of that. Or even what the real potential "upside" to that is.

Even if you get a "steal" in that 2nd year, if you really believe in Baertschi, i'd be wanting to lock him up to a "value deal" that's more long-term than just the 1 steal year. I'd be looking toward positioning for future negotiations really. And in that, if Sven puts up a "decent" year this season, you can still always renegotiate a 1-year deal anyway if you have to and then you're negotiating again after the 2nd year on hopefully a long-term deal at that point. Though if you really want to put chips in the game, you've got an opportunity on a 1-year deal to invest big after that first season (if he has a strong year) with a long-term deal based on that (and "potential" for more)...rather than two years strong body of work where you're much more likely to be paying "market value" based on more concrete results. I think that's where a lot of the "steal deals" come from...getting guys locked up with real term based on more ambiguous (and less leveraged) samples (and gambling right).

I think that positions a 1-year deal better (or at least equal to a 2-year) for getting a "value deal" locked up if Baertschi succeeds.

Or if he just blows expectations out of the water and lays out some bona fide "top-6 production" this season and you have to just pay the man...so be it. Just pay him, and be thrilled you got yourself an early 20s top-6 forward for a later 2nd round pick.

The main thing a 2-year deal would give you...is a very concrete "evaluation window" really, that takes you up to an opportunity to lock him up long-term at the end of it. And potentially a cheaper "2nd deal" in that. Though i'd be more interested in what the 3rd/4th deal costs in the end. I can still see some merit in trying to maximize the cap in the next 2-3 years, as beyond that...i think cap flexibility isn't going to be much of an issue with $14M coming off the board in the Sedins alone. And presumably, half the roster or more is going to be young players on ELCs/2nd contracts/bridge deals at that point. If that's really the concern here. Which is certainly a very different way of looking at it i suppose.

 

[drax0s]

Once again. Find me a player who played the full season in the AHL who got a two year NHL deal after.

Would Markstrom qualify?

 

[arsmaster*]

Would Markstrom qualify?

Probably. But I'm talking around the league not Jim benning lol.

The markstrom 2 year deal is silly IMO as well.

 

[drax0s]

Probably. But I'm talking around the league not Jim benning lol.

The markstrom 2 year deal is silly IMO as well.

Well, just looking for contracts signed by players on the first page of the top scorers in the ahl...

http://theahl.com/sabres-sign-cal-o-reilly-p198524
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=750047
http://www.si.com/nhl/2015/07/02/washington-capitals-sign-chris-bourque-contract
http://stars.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=711403

Not sure if all of these fit your criteria tho?

 

[tantalum]

Well, just looking for contracts signed by players on the first page of the top scorers in the ahl...

http://theahl.com/sabres-sign-cal-o-reilly-p198524
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=750047
http://www.si.com/nhl/2015/07/02/washington-capitals-sign-chris-bourque-contract
http://stars.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=711403

Not sure if all of these fit your criteria tho?

Your examples are of veteran AHLers signed to two way deals to be veteran leaders in the AHL. That isn't what is being discussed when it comes to Baertschi who is likely signing a one way deal to play in the NHL. Being in the AHL would be a huge disappointment and failed acquisition.

Rowling is similar I suppose but I'd wager he's signed on a two way near the league minimum. If Baertschi signed that type of deal I don't think anyone would complain. But two years, one way and likely at or above 1 mil is not sensible.

 

[Bad News Benning]

jurco signed for 2 years 1.8 million. 900,000 AAV.

that should be the ballpark for Sven since they are similar players in similar situations.

 

[me2]

Would you be willing to commit mid/long-term to Baertschi after one good season?

Would you give up on Baertschi if he had a poor year?

Two years just makes sense.

If he is prepared to take a two-way deal at sub $1m I would even be happy with 3 years - I doubt he is. A one-way deal should be around a one year deal, sub $1m.

 

[dwarf]

Baertschi reminds me of Jeff Tambellini.

I really hope we get Baertschi on a one year prove it deal. If he signs some crazy multi year, high cap hit deal, we will know it is the Weisbrod factor.

 

[Scurr]

I can see the merit in a 2-year deal, if you're really confident that he's going to perform well this year and you think you can get that 2nd year at "below value" based on that.

But then even in that case, i wonder on the wisdom of that. Or even what the real potential "upside" to that is.

Even if you get a "steal" in that 2nd year, if you really believe in Baertschi, i'd be wanting to lock him up to a "value deal" that's more long-term than just the 1 steal year. I'd be looking toward positioning for future negotiations really. And in that, if Sven puts up a "decent" year this season, you can still always renegotiate a 1-year deal anyway if you have to and then you're negotiating again after the 2nd year on hopefully a long-term deal at that point. Though if you really want to put chips in the game, you've got an opportunity on a 1-year deal to invest big after that first season (if he has a strong year) with a long-term deal based on that (and "potential" for more)...rather than two years strong body of work where you're much more likely to be paying "market value" based on more concrete results. I think that's where a lot of the "steal deals" come from...getting guys locked up with real term based on more ambiguous (and less leveraged) samples (and gambling right).



I think that positions a 1-year deal better (or at least equal to a 2-year) for getting a "value deal" locked up if Baertschi succeeds.

Or if he just blows expectations out of the water and lays out some bona fide "top-6 production" this season and you have to just pay the man...so be it. Just pay him, and be thrilled you got yourself an early 20s top-6 forward for a later 2nd round pick.

The main thing a 2-year deal would give you...is a very concrete "evaluation window" really, that takes you up to an opportunity to lock him up long-term at the end of it. And potentially a cheaper "2nd deal" in that. Though i'd be more interested in what the 3rd/4th deal costs in the end. I can still see some merit in trying to maximize the cap in the next 2-3 years, as beyond that...i think cap flexibility isn't going to be much of an issue with $14M coming off the board in the Sedins alone. And presumably, half the roster or more is going to be young players on ELCs/2nd contracts/bridge deals at that point. If that's really the concern here. Which is certainly a very different way of looking at it i suppose.

That's how you get value out of these deals imo. Use the bridge portion of the contract to get a basis to evaluate the player and then make a good decision. I think the players you want to speculate on are the ones that show great post draft development. The "can't miss" types.

 

[denkiteki]

Your examples are of veteran AHLers signed to two way deals to be veteran leaders in the AHL. That isn't what is being discussed when it comes to Baertschi who is likely signing a one way deal to play in the NHL. Being in the AHL would be a huge disappointment and failed acquisition.

Rowling is similar I suppose but I'd wager he's signed on a two way near the league minimum. If Baertschi signed that type of deal I don't think anyone would complain. But two years, one way and likely at or above 1 mil is not sensible.

To be honest, for an organization that spends to the cap, signing someone just above 1mil multi-year isnt that big of a risk. Worst case it cost the team a bit of money and a contract slot but burying him recovers 925 or 950k (forgot which it is next season) of cap space so in terms of cap hit, it won't cost too much. If we believe there's a good enough chance that player is a top 6 or top 9 player, its likely worth the gamble cause the 2nd (or 3rd) year would cost likely 1.5mil+ or even 2mil+ compared to the cheaper deal we get.

As far as other teams doing this, its not common because its not exactly common because realistically prospects like Baertschi should have been in the NHL already based on his AHL numbers. He didn't even look out of place at the end of the regular season (even if the games werent meaningful) and looked pretty good the few Flames games i saw (not saying i watched many nor actually focused on his play but did notice him a few times here/there).

There is a gamble but honestly there is a gamble with any contract. Giving Baertschi 2 or even 3 years at just over 1mil is a pretty small risk/high reward gamble. I'm guessing if you're looking for examples of this, there might be some in the Red Wings organization since they are one of the few organizations that keep players in the AHL even when they are beyond ready.

As far as similarity, i guess you can argue Smith from the Redwings, he did play the playoffs and the 2nd half of the season before his contract but he got a multi-year deal based on a very small sample size of NHL games (less than 1 full season). Remember Baertschi has actually played 69 NHL games so their total number of games is actually pretty similar (in terms of when Smith got his 2 year deal).

 

[tantalum]

To be honest, for an organization that spends to the cap, signing someone just above 1mil multi-year isnt that big of a risk. Worst case it cost the team a bit of money and a contract slot but burying him recovers 925 or 950k (forgot which it is next season) of cap space so in terms of cap hit, it won't cost too much. If we believe there's a good enough chance that player is a top 6 or top 9 player, its likely worth the gamble cause the 2nd (or 3rd) year would cost likely 1.5mil+ or even 2mil+ compared to the cheaper deal we get.

well paying extra because "it's no big deal" is why Benning has a bunch of dead weight taking up valuable cap space. Sbisa, miller, Dorset, Vey....now Vey is a few hundred too much but magically these too much money handed out on several contracts prevents the team from signing potential upgrades or taking on other teams bad deals to help a rebuild. So yes, it is a big deal. The team spends to the cap and is likely to the miss the playoffs. This extra money to undeserving players, this inability to create or use leverage will just exasperate the situation.

I would also disagree he looked in his games in the NHL. He looked like he has since his first NHL game. A guy with talent that plays an inconsistent perimeter game. Heck while he played well for Utica, he still really hasn't put together a good full season pro campaign. He is the poster boy for a put up or shut up contract IMO.

 

[Scurr]

well paying extra because "it's no big deal" is why Benning has a bunch of dead weight taking up valuable cap space. Sbisa, miller, Dorset, Vey....now Vey is a few hundred too much but magically these too much money handed out on several contracts prevents the team from signing potential upgrades or taking on other teams bad deals to help a rebuild. So yes, it is a big deal. The team spends to the cap and is likely to the miss the playoffs. This extra money to undeserving players, this inability to create or use leverage will just exasperate the situation.

I would also disagree he looked in his games in the NHL. He looked like he has since his first NHL game. A guy with talent that plays an inconsistent perimeter game. Heck while he played well for Utica, he still really hasn't put together a good full season pro campaign. He is the poster boy for a put up or shut up contract IMO.

What is that exactly? 1yr 800k?

 

[Huggy]

That 4th line won't ever get out of their own zone.....

Yea because the goal this yr is cup right.

we want to lose. Complaiing about a weak line up cuz we dont have richardson or matthias is hilarious, you want to tank.

you want chychryn

 

[Hardyvan123]

This isn't a question for probablies.

Tanner Pearson didn't play in the AHL last season.

Baertschi did. Baertschi was an AHL player.

Once again. Find me a player who played the full season in the AHL who got a two year NHL deal after.

Which begs the natural question as to why?

Why pay for something not earned.

What is going to happen to Horvat when he earn his next contract when he compares himself to Benning's other signings?

 

[me2]

Yea because the goal this yr is cup right.

we want to lose. Complaiing about a weak line up cuz we dont have richardson or matthias is hilarious, you want to tank.

you want chychryn

Benning's goal is to win. You must think him a fool.

 

[denkiteki]

well paying extra because "it's no big deal" is why Benning has a bunch of dead weight taking up valuable cap space. Sbisa, miller, Dorset, Vey....now Vey is a few hundred too much but magically these too much money handed out on several contracts prevents the team from signing potential upgrades or taking on other teams bad deals to help a rebuild. So yes, it is a big deal. The team spends to the cap and is likely to the miss the playoffs. This extra money to undeserving players, this inability to create or use leverage will just exasperate the situation.

I would also disagree he looked in his games in the NHL. He looked like he has since his first NHL game. A guy with talent that plays an inconsistent perimeter game. Heck while he played well for Utica, he still really hasn't put together a good full season pro campaign. He is the poster boy for a put up or shut up contract IMO.

Difference is you're comparing way too much (in the case of Sbisa/Dorset/Miller) and just a bit of wasted cap space. Kinda like how we wasted a bit of cap space last year with Markstrom. Losing 100-200k isn't all that bad if its all it cost us for the possible reward of getting good value 2/3 years down the raod. In case of Sbisa/Dorset you can easily argue they are making > 1mil more than they should and in the case of Miller, probably argue 2 mil too much. Thats quite a big difference when compared to 100-200k.

Also the reason we're spending to the cap is due to bigger bad deals over this. If we are going on a full rebuild (which we probably should), gambles like these are better than gambles like Miller/Dorset since we already know they won't get any better.. where as you have someone who isn't near their peak yet. Thats the argument that Benning used on Sbisa and he's right to a degree that Sbisa could get better (but not even close to being worth the money he got, there's very little chance Sbisa even plays to the value of his contract forget above the value).

You're not going to win every gamble but if you never gamble, you'll also rarely get good value contracts too. Bonino is a classic example of a gamble paying off. Ana signed him to a long term deal, longer than he likely should've gotten given his lack of NHL games when he got the deal and it paid off for them. Burrows contract before was another example, having a 30g scorer for 2mil for a few years gave us a decent competitive advantage. Sedins was another example of a gamble we should've taken but didn't. Remember initially they wanted a long/career contract with us for cap hit in the ~5mil when Luongo signed his deal. If we took that deal instead of paying more for a shorter term deal, it'll actually end up costing us less now since we resigned them for even more money (total > initial). Where as Luongo's gamble clearly ended up being a lost.

In terms of pure numbers, you're basically looking at putting up say 200k/yr for 2/3 years in hopes of saving anywhere between 500k-1mil/year over the same time period. That's pretty good odds if you think there's a good chance Baertschi can be a top 9 winger in the near future. Basically low risk/high reward. With some of the other gambles (i.e. Sedins/Luongo/etc) it was high risk/high reward. Of course at the end of the day, rather its a good gamble or not depends on how likely you think Baertschi will be in the top 9 next season. Given we just gave up a 2nd round pick for him @ the deadline, Benning better feel like he'll be on the team next year or he's facing even more backlash (as if #fireBenning isn't already trending enough...). Which means its not actually a bad idea to take this gamble.

 

[tantalum]

Difference is you're comparing way too much (in the case of Sbisa/Dorset/Miller) and just a bit of wasted cap space. Kinda like how we wasted a bit of cap space last year with Markstrom. Losing 100-200k isn't all that bad if its all it cost us for the possible reward of getting good value 2/3 years down the raod. In case of Sbisa/Dorset you can easily argue they are making > 1mil more than they should and in the case of Miller, probably argue 2 mil too much. Thats quite a big difference when compared to 100-200k.

we can agree to disagree. Wasted cap space on a Vey and Baertschi by overpaying a few hundred each is already 500k. Dorset is another few hundred k...it adds up quick. That's an issue. Giving up a little too much is the same mentality that leads to giving up way too much. Too much money too much term too many assets....

I don't disagree with taking gambles sometime. I don't, however, believe that good gambles are players who have had issues for multiple years sticking in the NHL. Baertschi is intriguing but I don't gamble a multi year deal unless it comes in under a million and even then I'm not convinced. He isn't likely to come in and set the world on fire given he has trouble consistently doing that in the AHL. Make him prove it and then lock him up longer term if he deserves it.

 

[tantalum]

What is that exactly? 1yr 800k?

I've been pretty clear. There is no reason why he should be getting anything more (term or money) than his qualifier. If he wants one way I'd say he takes less.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Yea because the goal this yr is cup right.

we want to lose. Complaiing about a weak line up cuz we dont have richardson or matthias is hilarious, you want to tank.

you want chychryn

is this a real post? no team will EVER enter a season with a goal to lose.


every single nhl team has the same goal, make the playoffs, win the cup.


period.


only fan boys think otherwise!

 

[Zombotron]

is this a real post? no team will EVER enter a season with a goal to lose.


every single nhl team has the same goal, make the playoffs, win the cup.


period.


only fan boys think otherwise!

1983-84 Penguins, 1992-93 Senators, 2014-15 Sabres - I'm playing devil's advocate, but there are exceptions.

 

[tantalum]

1983-84 Penguins, 1992-93 Senators, 2014-15 Sabres - I'm playing devil's advocate, but there are exceptions.

Very very few and it certainly isn't the case with this team.