The more I think about it, the more I think the extension is pretty good.
1. Faulk will be 32 years old when his mNTC kicks in. So he will be 32, with two more years of control at 6.5M, that we can trade to 1/2 the league at that point. (15 team modified no-trade for a 32 team league, 31-15=16) If you think about even a modest increase in cap year to year, it's likely to be around 90M at that point. 6.5 AAV for a 90M cap is pretty easy to move, unless injuries/his game falls waaaaaay off a cliff. Remember, McDonough got moved with a similar contract/age and a much lower cap. Moving on from Faulk shouldn't be a problem if we think he's not doing it for us in 6 years.
The issue is about signing a second pairing defenseman until that age. If we think he is going to age very well? Then deal will be fine. However, it tends to be the top players that age the best and there is a significant risk of signing players of that calibre to that kind of deal.
If his skating falls away at 31 then that contract could become unmovable. Look at Shattenkirk, a rough couple of seasons and the Rangers had to buy him out. A higher cap makes it easier to move players, but it doesn’t solve everything.
Also, a clause limiting you to half the teams in the League is extremely restrictive if he does regress. He can put the bad teams on that list and the cap teams can’t afford to take on highly paid, declining players.
We’re reliant on him, at a minimum, maintaining him current level for at least the next 6 years for this deal to be fine. For it to be good then his offensive production will likely need to see an increase. His production in the playoffs last season was certainly promising in that regard. But I don't wanting to be signing 27 year olds to long term extensions and hoping they become better than they have shown.
2. The cap is not going to be 90M. It's going to be much higher. The NHL's new TV deal should be enormous. It will raise the cap significantly moving forward. Getting as much talent signed beforehand is absolutely the right call. I don't follow the NBA, but when they signed their new TV deal their cap skyrocketed and allowed for the GSW to get Durant. Something similar is going to happen to the NHL most likely.
I don’t know a massive amount about that aspect, but I think that people are overestimating the impact of the new US TV deal because the NBA cap went through the roof.
The current deal is $200m a year and the estimates that I’ve seen for the new deal are $400m-$500m a year. If we assume the higher end, that is a $150m a year increase to the players share. Divided by the then 32 teams, that is a cap rise of ~$4.7m.
You then have to factor in the desire of the NHLPA to get escrow under control, so we don’t know what other growth they will want to be projecting into cap calculations.
There is a healthy cap increase coming, but I’ve seen people talking about a $100m cap in a few years, and that would seem optimistic to me. Unless I’ve just overlooked something obvious in those rough calculations.
If we’re looking at something like $90m in a few years, $6.5m is still on the rich side for a middle-pairing guy (unless he’s ~45 points each year).
3. There are two other major events coming up. One is an expansion draft. The other is a new CBA. In both instances, we will be well positioned to make roster changes that we deem necessary, instead of losing a key piece. Want to move on from Faulk? Expose him in the expansion draft. Want to move on from Faulk? Use a compliance buy-out that you know is coming in the next CBA. There are a lot of mechanisms to remove players/salary from our team over the next few years, outside of traditional trades/buyouts. This, combined with the aforementioned increase in cap, makes me feel pretty confident that we won't get screwed long-term by this extension.
I don’t see any possible scenario where there will be compliance buy-outs attached to the next CBA. It doesn’t make sense. They were a necessary evil of the last CBA because of the drop in the salary cap. I find it difficult to see the players and owners share changing from a 50/50 split in the next deal; the next CBA arguments will be about other things (escrow, Olympics, LTIR, etc.).
The expansion draft isn’t really talking about my issue though. I am fine with the trade, I’m not so fine with the extension. If we’re in a position where we’re considering just exposing him in the expansion draft, that will likely suggest that the extension was a mistake.
