Toggle sidebar

Speculation: Colton Parayko's next contract

Status
Not open for further replies.
Brian39

Brian39

Registered User
Apr 24, 2014
7,095
12,961
carter333167 said:
The concern is that Armstrong has taken two runs at Parayko and hasn't come up with a deal. If he doesn't get a long term deal cut in the next two days, the chances probably decrease that we will ever get a long term deal cut before UFA, particularly if Parayko gets a two year bridge.

While I agree that there is not cause for total panic b/c a deal might get done, if a deal in fact does not get done in the next two days, the Blues definitely have a significant issue on their hands as to one of their three most valuable players....and that is not a good thing.

Finally, there is too much focus on strict adherence to comps IMO. When you are dealing with a player of Parayko's ceiling, character and popularity, there should be some "play" in the comp equation. He probably does as much as anyone outside of Tank and Petro to help us win, he's one of our best and most consistent players night in and night out, he's future captain material, he works harder than most any other player and he is already one of the most popular players for the fans (he puts butts in seats). He's a "face of the franchise" type player and it's hard to argue that such a player is worth 5.5 million but definitely is not worth 6 million. Many posters here believe he will probably contend for the Norris at some point in his career. It would be foolish to draw such a hard line on such a player...it's not the hill you choose to draw the battle line. The battle line should have been drawn on contracts such as Berglund...not on Parayko. Parayko simply is worth more to this franchise than an extra 500K.

Put another way, we only have a couple of legit superstar and potential superstar talents. If we need to pay them an extra 500k to make them happy, you pay them the money. No one else on this team really is comparable to Tank, Petro or Parayko. The asset has such enormous intrinsic value b/c the asset is so difficult to find. We can find 10 Berglunds...we can find 20 Jaskins, we can even probably find a few Fabbris or Edmundsons....but finding a Petro, a Tank or a Parayko is a once in a decade development. The same rules don't apply to a superstar or a potential superstar. It's penny-wise pound foolish to quibble over 500k with an uber-elite player that has shown great character and work ethic. You make them happy and should be happy to have them b/c the value of a franchise for the owners is largely tied to its elite players, not to its interchangeable pieces.

In any case, we'll see what happens.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of your analysis, but I disagree with a couple conclusions. First, I think there is little reason to panic if it ends up being an arbitration award. I don't really buy the 'Army's had 2 runs at getting an extension done with Parayko' argument. Maybe I'm misremembering, but my recollection is that earlier talks with Parayko were informal, brief and that Parayko preferred to hold off talks until after this past season ended. I think categorizing that as a completely separate 'run' at a long term deal is pretty disingenuous. It was pretty obvious that a fair (to both sides) long term deal was almost certainly not a realistic expectation after just 1 year of NHL experience. I truly believe that the only fair way to look at an arbitration award would be that Army failed once to get an extension.

I don't see anything to indicate that an arbitration award makes an eventual long term deal much less likely. Less likely in the sense that the issue would be resolved if we avoid arbitration with a long term deal, but I don't think it would poison the well. I still feel very strongly that the biggest downside/risk of arbitration is that a bridge deal will force the AAV of an eventual long term deal much higher than it could/should be.

I think you're spot on with the rest of your post. If the two sides are within $500k, I'll be upset if that is the gulf that causes Army to go to arbitration instead of just overpaying slightly to lock him up long term.

I hope (and my gut tells me) that they are about $500k off, we are willing to give that AAV if we tack on an extra UFA year or two, and Parayko's camp is holding steady that their requested AAV is for a specific term (likely 6 years). If that is the type of difference we are talking, I hope and think Army will budge and avoid arbitration. If they are seeking $1+ mil over the comps (or if Parayko is insisting on no more than 5 years), then I would have a hard time blaming Army for not being willing to budge that far.
 
Brian39

Brian39

Registered User
Apr 24, 2014
7,095
12,961
I get annoyed at fans who can't figure out that arbitration asks have nothing to do with negotiations on a long term deal. That fact that Lambert can't seem to grasp that is just absurd for a person paid to write about hockey. More frustrating, Lambert is a decently intelligent guy. I have a hard time believing that he honestly doesn't grasp this concept. I think he realizes exactly what he is doing but feels compelled to have a hot take.

Puck Daddy has unfortunately gone way down hill. I used to read it a ton and I still listen to Marek v Wyshynski (and sometimes listen to Wysh's other podcast with Lozo). For someone who regularly talks about disliking hot-takery on his podcasts, he has allowed the Puck Daddy blog to become filled with it.
 
PiggySmalls

PiggySmalls

Oink Oink MF
Mar 7, 2015
6,107
3,516
I can't help but think who will be the one for the Blues to argue their side. Maybe they send in McInnis and tells the arbitrator, "Kid has a shot a lot like mine, but he is afraid to use it. We would have offered him more but that money went towards buying him new sticks."

I bet it took them awhile to find enough video footage of blatant errors to use at the hearing.
 
Brian39

Brian39

Registered User
Apr 24, 2014
7,095
12,961
Bluesfan54 said:
As long as Parayko doesn't pull a Sobotka and refuse to show up, I'll be happy.
Click to expand...

I mean, I wouldn't be mad about the arbitrator having to choose the Blues' number because Parayko presents zero evidence. I'd prefer that to the worst case scenario of him showing up, listening to our management criticize aspects of his game, and then ending up with an arbitration award right at the number Parayko is requesting.
 
carter333167

carter333167

Registered User
Apr 24, 2013
6,958
3,120
Brian39 said:
I hope (and my gut tells me) that they are about $500k off, we are willing to give that AAV if we tack on an extra UFA year or two, and Parayko's camp is holding steady that their requested AAV is for a specific term (likely 6 years). If that is the type of difference we are talking, I hope and think Army will budge and avoid arbitration. If they are seeking $1+ mil over the comps (or if Parayko is insisting on no more than 5 years), then I would have a hard time blaming Army for not being willing to budge that far.
Click to expand...

I agree with your gut instinct...that they are probably about $500k apart..maybe as much as $700K. My guess is that Parayko's target is $6.0-$6.2 on a six year deal. I would be really surprised and disappointed if Army hadn't offered at least $5.5 on a six year deal.

In sum, I would be about disappointed: 1. in Parayko if he was holding firm above $6.2 for a six year deal; or 2. in Armstrong if he was holding firm at $5.4 or under on a six year deal.

I have a bad sense that the latter scenario is the case based upon Rutherford opining (three weeks ago) that he believed Armstrong wanted to keep about $3 million in dry powder. If that is true, I would largely blame Armstrong for any impasse.
 
Last edited:
Vladys Gumption

Vladys Gumption

Colt55
Apr 30, 2012
21,032
5,389
St. Louis, MO
Bluesguru said:
How much of a window do the Blues have left to work out a long term deal before having to accept the arbitrators decision?


This is crazy IMO if the Blues don't lock him up right now for at least 6 years.
Click to expand...

The arbitrator has up to 48 hours to announce he award. The team and player have until the award is announced to work out a deal. So theoretically they could get a deal done Sunday morning.
 
STL fan in MN

STL fan in MN

Registered User
Aug 16, 2007
7,069
3,884
Not really a big deal but I was expecting there to be a deal by now. With the hearing set for 9am tomorrow, the two sides must already be in the location of the hearing (NYC? TOR?). Hopefully they can work something out tonight at the hotel of tomorrow in court before the hearing begins. As noted, they could still agree to a deal before the arbitrator announces his decision but I'd prefer to avoid any possible uncomfortable moments that could lead to bad blood that sometimes results from these hearings.
 
carter333167

carter333167

Registered User
Apr 24, 2013
6,958
3,120
Here is Timmerman's article just posted to the PD website.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/hock...cle_c09eb838-9b60-53ee-b0b6-3cb99ac15b87.html

"The Blues reportedly have submitted offers of $3.4 million and $3.6 million for each of two years, according to Elliotte Friedman of Sportsnet in Canada. Parayko’s side countered with a one-year offer of $4.85 million. The Blues currently have about $7.6 million of cap space and like to spend to about 95 percent of the cap when the season starts so they have room to add players later. That gives them about $4 million or so to work with at the moment."

Timmerman is repeating Rutherford's point that Armstrong only wants to spend about $4 million of the $7.6 million available cap room on the first year of Parayko's deal.
 
Last edited:

BlueDream

Registered User
Aug 30, 2011
25,765
14,174
They can move Gunnarsson at some point during the season most likely. I highly doubt that's how they are approaching it. Armstrong isn't that dumb.
 
Dbrownss

Dbrownss

Registered User
Jan 5, 2014
31,359
8,734
Yea, that goes the opposite of what he's been saying. You dont lable someone has a core piece you want long term and then offer them a contract starting with 4.
 
carter333167

carter333167

Registered User
Apr 24, 2013
6,958
3,120
Dbrownss said:
Yea, that goes the opposite of what he's been saying. You dont lable someone has a core piece you want long term and then offer them a contract starting with 4.
Click to expand...

This is exactly my thought.

Again, I thought Rutherford was wrong when he stated that Armstrong was attempting to retain 5% of the cap for "late addition signings" but the fact that we have made it all the way to the hearing makes me think Rutherford and Timmerman might be correct. If Armstrong truly only wants to budget $4 million of the available $7.6 million for Parayko's first year, I can see why Parayko might take it as an affront.

Blues' arbitration brief reads as follows: "He's a true cornerstone player but, ya know, we had to sign Berglund and Sobotka and we also want to retain $3.2 million to pick up the new version of Steve Ott for the coming season, sooooo........the cornerstone player needs to wait on his pay day."

Just joking of course but Armstrong's actions don't seem to be matching his words.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom