Speculation: Guess Binnington's next contract
- Thread starter Spektre
- Start date
Brockon
Cautiously optimistic realist when caffeinated.
The team gets to choose if the arbitration awarded contract is 1 or 2 years.
I'd read Binny is 2 years from UFA (unsure about this), but there's no way that the team walks him to UFA with a contract award - he gets a 1 year, or a long term deal.
My preference is a 1 year deal to establish a better sample size and allow us to consider loading up at the TDL this season to potentially make another deep run/go back to back.
Whoever elects for arbitration gives the other side the decision on a one or two year contract. If the Blues elected for it, Binnington would have the choice.
Binnington is two years away from UFA. If we get a contract worked out through negotiation, I agree that a two year deal is extremely unlikely.
However, if Binnington goes through arbitration then we have to accept the fact that he can walk himself to UFA at 27 and we can't stop that. Even if we elect for a one year deal, Binnington could just go to arbitration again next summer and he would only be eligible for a one year deal at that point.
So in the scenario where Binnington elects for arbitration this summer, it's probably best to take the two year deal. It doesn't change anything. The player can still end up a UFA in 2021 and we can still sign him to a long term extension next summer. The benefit of the two year deal is avoiding another arbitration hearing, which GMs don't like because he is basically walking in a room and explaining why his player isn't worth X and how he isn't as good as Y. Plus, it means Binnington is signed through 2020/21 and we're not dealing with Pietrangelo, Schenn, Dunn and Binnington salary jumps all at the same time.
If I were Binnington I’d want term more than AAV. 3 years for 11M would work, with the UFA year being the basis for his next contract going forward. (3M, 3.5M, 4.5M) something like that.
If his career implodes due to injury or fluky play, he’s set for life. That’s how I’d approach it.
If his career implodes due to injury or fluky play, he’s set for life. That’s how I’d approach it.
Ted Hoffman
The other Rick Zombo
- Dec 15, 2002
- 29,242
- 8,674
The "48 hours after the Final" piece you mention alludes to club-elected arbitration where the player's salary in the prior season was $1.75 million or more [$ based on 2013-14, it adjusts up in future seasons]. Even if you figure out the math to say where that threshold should be today, Binnington made $650K last season. So, this piece won't apply and the Blues cannot take him to arbitration right now.
Binnington has until 5pm Eastern on July 5 to decide, unless he signed his qualifying offer; if he doesn't sign his QO and doesn't file for arbitration, the Blues have 24 hours to elect to take Binnington to arbitration. [Binnington's QO would be $715,000; obvious spoiler - he's not just going to sign it.]
Choice of term was answered up above.
It's difficult to say "arbitrators have been fair" because damn few cases have actually resulted in an award. Few of them have actually gotten in front of an arbitrator to begin with, and most of those got settled before the award was announced. Only 4 of the 44 cases that were filed last summer were resolved with the arbitrator giving an award; the year prior, all 30 were resolved pre-arbitration.
Ted Hoffman
The other Rick Zombo
- Dec 15, 2002
- 29,242
- 8,674
I still think Allen's contract is a potential albatross for the Blues in contract discussions.
Allen at the time he got his extension (which was right on the heels of having shipped out Elliott to make Allen the undisputed #1 going forward.): regular season + playoffs combined 111 career games played, 99 career starts, 60-31-7, 2.33, .914. That playoff record? Just 3-5.
Binnington, to date: 59 total career games played, 56 career starts, 40-15-1, 2.16, .920. Oh, and 16 playoff wins in one playoff year, - or 5x as many as Allen had across 2 years when he got his extension.
Oh, and you can definitely say that Binnington was a more legitimate #1 [meaning, he was given #1 responsibilities and work loads] this past season than Allen ever was before he got his extension.
If Allen got pretty decent $ for not really demonstrating a whole lot, I really don't know how you argue that Binnington should get less than Allen did after doing a hell of a lot more. "Well, it's different" and "well, we've learned not to put a lot of weight on ________" and such sounds awesome, but 16 wins and a Cup speaks volumes. Maybe Binnington will give a hometown discount and do something for less, but after the team tried to cram him down to the ECHL in 2017-18 before finally loaning him to Providence, and after getting crammed down to the league minimum for this past season and getting shut out of a chance to contend for the backup spot in training camp, ... I've said it before, I'll say it yet again. If I'm Binnington's agent, I'm getting that pound of flesh back on this next deal. I'm sure as hell not agreeing for him to take less than the guy whose job he just took for good.
Allen at the time he got his extension (which was right on the heels of having shipped out Elliott to make Allen the undisputed #1 going forward.): regular season + playoffs combined 111 career games played, 99 career starts, 60-31-7, 2.33, .914. That playoff record? Just 3-5.
Binnington, to date: 59 total career games played, 56 career starts, 40-15-1, 2.16, .920. Oh, and 16 playoff wins in one playoff year, - or 5x as many as Allen had across 2 years when he got his extension.
Oh, and you can definitely say that Binnington was a more legitimate #1 [meaning, he was given #1 responsibilities and work loads] this past season than Allen ever was before he got his extension.
If Allen got pretty decent $ for not really demonstrating a whole lot, I really don't know how you argue that Binnington should get less than Allen did after doing a hell of a lot more. "Well, it's different" and "well, we've learned not to put a lot of weight on ________" and such sounds awesome, but 16 wins and a Cup speaks volumes. Maybe Binnington will give a hometown discount and do something for less, but after the team tried to cram him down to the ECHL in 2017-18 before finally loaning him to Providence, and after getting crammed down to the league minimum for this past season and getting shut out of a chance to contend for the backup spot in training camp, ... I've said it before, I'll say it yet again. If I'm Binnington's agent, I'm getting that pound of flesh back on this next deal. I'm sure as hell not agreeing for him to take less than the guy whose job he just took for good.
LGB51
2019 STANLEY CUP CHAMPION ST. LOUIS BLUES!
It really is mind boggling they went out to sign another backup this year instead of giving him a try. I would really like to know their reasoning for keeping him at the minor level so long. It's not like his numbers were bad, they actually were pretty good. Now he's always going to have the 5 year minor pro stigma through no fault of his own that I know about. Was it all just to keep giving Allen chances to prove himself? Because if I were Binny, and that were the case while I was continually posting consistently good numbers up to age 25 never really getting a shot and only actually did because Husso was injured when the callup was made, that wouldn't set well with me.
LGB51
2019 STANLEY CUP CHAMPION ST. LOUIS BLUES!
I really wish you could post ESPN+ clips of Quest for the Stanley Cup episode 7 because Binnington yet again with the quote after that Game 7 performance. As usual he didn't say much, but it was the way he said it while doing the Fonz double point at the camera lol, goes something like
"We did it. Legends, confidence for life."
with the Fonz (from the TV show Happy Days for you young whipper snappers here lol) double point at the camera to punctuate the quote
Looked something like this for those that can't watch
"We did it. Legends, confidence for life."
with the Fonz (from the TV show Happy Days for you young whipper snappers here lol) double point at the camera to punctuate the quote
Looked something like this for those that can't watch
Last edited:
The reason for keeping him in the minors for so long is because coaching and management didn't rate him. Binnington was told in camp that he wasn't going to get game time in pre-season because he wasn't in the organisations plans moving forward.
Who knows how that sits with Binnington, or how it could impact what his ask is in negoitations.
Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,126
- 13,061
This narrative that the Blues buried him in the minors too long for no reason is just not factually accurate and is not a winning argument at arbitration.
He almost got sent to the ECHL because as a 23 year old on the Wolves the year before he was noticeably outplayed by both Husso and Copley. In the 2 years prior to almost going to the ECHL and then being loaned to Providence, he carried a sub-.910 SV% in the 2 year years in which you expect a goalie to be demonstrating an ability to take the step up to the NHL level. He rededicated himself after 2016/17, getting involved with Biosteel and getting a new goalie coach. That decision almost certainly saved his career and his underlying mechanics appear to be that of a guy who can be a legitimate long-term NHL starter and not a one off. But all of that happened after he was passed on the depth chart by Copley and Husso in 2016/17 due largely to his own play.
If he goes to arbitration and tries to argue that the Blues are responsible for 'burying him in the minors' all he is doing is opening the door for the Blues to talk in depth about his mediocre AHL performances until he was 24 years old and use that to solidly separate him from Allen as a comparable. At 23, Allen posted a .928 in the AHL and won goalie of the year in that league. He developed the way you expect a future starter to develop and that performance is a big, big reason why Army felt confident in offering him the (regrettable) contract he did after Allen appeared to take the next step in the NHL by posting a .920 as a 25 year old 1A/1B.
Long term development trajectory is far and away the Blues best argument to differentiate Binny from Allen as a comparable. Attempting to focus the arbitrator on the Blues' perceived failure to promote Binny sooner is a disastrous strategy for Binny's agent when his stats as a 22 and 23 year old don't support that argument at all.
He almost got sent to the ECHL because as a 23 year old on the Wolves the year before he was noticeably outplayed by both Husso and Copley. In the 2 years prior to almost going to the ECHL and then being loaned to Providence, he carried a sub-.910 SV% in the 2 year years in which you expect a goalie to be demonstrating an ability to take the step up to the NHL level. He rededicated himself after 2016/17, getting involved with Biosteel and getting a new goalie coach. That decision almost certainly saved his career and his underlying mechanics appear to be that of a guy who can be a legitimate long-term NHL starter and not a one off. But all of that happened after he was passed on the depth chart by Copley and Husso in 2016/17 due largely to his own play.
If he goes to arbitration and tries to argue that the Blues are responsible for 'burying him in the minors' all he is doing is opening the door for the Blues to talk in depth about his mediocre AHL performances until he was 24 years old and use that to solidly separate him from Allen as a comparable. At 23, Allen posted a .928 in the AHL and won goalie of the year in that league. He developed the way you expect a future starter to develop and that performance is a big, big reason why Army felt confident in offering him the (regrettable) contract he did after Allen appeared to take the next step in the NHL by posting a .920 as a 25 year old 1A/1B.
Long term development trajectory is far and away the Blues best argument to differentiate Binny from Allen as a comparable. Attempting to focus the arbitrator on the Blues' perceived failure to promote Binny sooner is a disastrous strategy for Binny's agent when his stats as a 22 and 23 year old don't support that argument at all.
Last edited:
Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,126
- 13,061
Edit: as for a prediction, I think this one either goes to arbitration or results in a 1 year, $3.5-$4 mil deal on the eve of a hearing neither side wants to have.
Binny is confident enough in himself that I think he will probably bet on himself to cash in next year rather than take the financial security of a 3 year deal similar to Matt Murray's. From the Blues perspective, I think there will be hesitation to give out a 4+ year deal based on about 50 games. I think Army would rather get another 50 games of sample size and then eat a higher AAV than to risk him being a one-off and get locked into another goalie contract that's regrettable.
Paying market value for a top 10 starter after 100+ game sample size is much easier to swallow than paying a guy who turns into mediocre starter low-end starter money. That should be the takeaway from the Allen/Lehtera contracts and to a lesser extent the avoidance of a 4 year extension for Eddy that so many of us wanted next year.
Arbitration and a 1 year deal is a pretty decent outcome for the Blues, so I don't see Binny being able to leverage the threat of arbitration into huge long term deal. He can point to Allen's contract all he wants, but if I'm Army, I would be more than comfortable politely arguing, "we learned a lesson from that contract and are not giving you that much." If that causes negotiations to die on the vine, I'd be more than comfortable going to arbitration expecting the Murray AAV to be the result. And I'd rather take that and renegotiate with RFA Binny next summer (or mid season) after getting more info than give him a deal worth more than Allen's.
If I were an NHL GM, goaltending is a position where I would avoid 4+ year contracts like the plague whenever possible. In 2015/16, the top 10 goalies by SV% were Bishop, Crawford, Schneider, Luongo, Holtby, Fleury, Mrazek, Allen, Hank and C Johnson (40 or more starts). Only 2 of them were top 10 the next year and just 1 made the list 2 years later.
Binny is confident enough in himself that I think he will probably bet on himself to cash in next year rather than take the financial security of a 3 year deal similar to Matt Murray's. From the Blues perspective, I think there will be hesitation to give out a 4+ year deal based on about 50 games. I think Army would rather get another 50 games of sample size and then eat a higher AAV than to risk him being a one-off and get locked into another goalie contract that's regrettable.
Paying market value for a top 10 starter after 100+ game sample size is much easier to swallow than paying a guy who turns into mediocre starter low-end starter money. That should be the takeaway from the Allen/Lehtera contracts and to a lesser extent the avoidance of a 4 year extension for Eddy that so many of us wanted next year.
Arbitration and a 1 year deal is a pretty decent outcome for the Blues, so I don't see Binny being able to leverage the threat of arbitration into huge long term deal. He can point to Allen's contract all he wants, but if I'm Army, I would be more than comfortable politely arguing, "we learned a lesson from that contract and are not giving you that much." If that causes negotiations to die on the vine, I'd be more than comfortable going to arbitration expecting the Murray AAV to be the result. And I'd rather take that and renegotiate with RFA Binny next summer (or mid season) after getting more info than give him a deal worth more than Allen's.
If I were an NHL GM, goaltending is a position where I would avoid 4+ year contracts like the plague whenever possible. In 2015/16, the top 10 goalies by SV% were Bishop, Crawford, Schneider, Luongo, Holtby, Fleury, Mrazek, Allen, Hank and C Johnson (40 or more starts). Only 2 of them were top 10 the next year and just 1 made the list 2 years later.
Last edited:
Chojin
Tiny Panger...
- Apr 6, 2011
- 4,301
- 573
You have to make sure he's for real, he's a UFA in 2 years, and he just led the team to a Cup. I don't see how this doesn't add up to a 1-year "prove it" contract for $4-5m. It's too dangerous to lock him up long-term.
Em etah Eh
Maroon PP
- Jul 17, 2007
- 3,091
- 1,500
Ted Hoffman
The other Rick Zombo
- Dec 15, 2002
- 29,242
- 8,674
I agree with this. I don't see a long-term deal coming this summer, and I think both sides have reasons to not want that. I'm not sure I see 2 years coming in this either; that takes him to UFA and I don't think the Blues want to roll the dice on that. So IMO, all we're really arguing about is the $.
And BTW, I think it's awesome that we're having that discussion in the afterglow of having won the Cup.
Ted Hoffman
The other Rick Zombo
- Dec 15, 2002
- 29,242
- 8,674
I get why he was in the minors. Prior to 2017-18, there was nothing that said "he's clearly ready for the NHL." I think trying to send him to the ECHL because they didn't have room at San Antonio was a stupid idea; yes, the Blues were splitting San Antonio with Colorado and so there wasn't room for both of our goalies, but at least try to loan him out before trying to send him down to the AA, don't start with "well, we're shipping you to the ECHL - pack your bags and go." Sure, Husso was the guy in the '17 playoffs for Chicago but it's not like he was lights out by any stretch and he played fewer games in the regular season [due to injuries] than Binnington did. He just happened to get the 2015 Allen, "you looked great in the last few games of the season so the #1 spot is yours for the playoffs" treatment.
I still think between Binnington's play at Providence and Husso's play at San Antonio it should have bought both of them the chance to play their way into the backup spot. If neither one did, fine - then go out and find a backup [and that wouldn't have been difficult to do]. Don't run out on July 1 and sign a pretty mediocre journeyman for $1.75 million when you played tight the last time you signed a journeyman goalie [who arguably had a better track record] 2 years prior for $1.25M / $1M.
Like I've said, I just don't know how you offer Allen 4 years, $17 million and the #1 spot in net without him really having proven much, then turn around and say "yeah, even though you bailed our asses out in the postseason and backstopped us to the Cup, ... well, I learned my lesson, I'm not forking that kind of money over again" and think that argument is going to fly if it gets in front of an arbitrator. And while I don't think either side wants this to end up in front of an arbitrator, I think one of the two sides has a real vested interest in making sure it doesn't happen because they're going to have a hell of a time making their argument stand up - and trying to go cheap is a great way to make sure it ends up there.
Vladys Gumption
Colt55
Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,126
- 13,061
That won't at all be the argument to the arbitrator. The argument will be that after Allen played 50 NHL games, he got a 2 year bridge deal at $2.35 mil AAV. Now Binny is certainly worth more than that and the Blues will point towards Murray's number since he is a better comparable (but obviously discounting the AAV since the Pens got 3 years of term and were paying a guy who had way more AHL success than Binny and had his rookie Cup year at a younger age).
But if he wants to use Allen as a comparable during arbitration, he is opening the door for the Blues to point out how much better Allen had performed before turning 24 and then argue that we agree Allen's first 1 way NHL contract is a great comparable to what you should be earning. Other than playing for the same team, Allen is a poor comparable for Binny. Using Allen as a comparable offer the team a number of avenues to undermine Binny at arbitration. They then get to talk about Binny's lackluster AHL career before turning 24 and talk about how the organization as a whole is cautious towards goalies with limited NHL experience by pointing out Allen's bridge deal.
Using Allen's salary during negotiations with Army is a great move by his agent. It is a good leverage point and allows you to argue for a number higher than the Murray comparable by approaching it as "it's not about the money, it is about the recognition that he is the guy here." But if Army won't budge and it goes to arbitration, bringing up Allen is a mistake. It opens way too many doors for the Blues to undermine Binny's absolute best argument: He came in and saved the season all the way to the Stanley Cup. Anything that brings the arbitrator's attention away from that fact and onto Binny's career before the fall of 2017 is a huge mistake in arbitration.
Last edited:
Ted Hoffman
The other Rick Zombo
- Dec 15, 2002
- 29,242
- 8,674
From the Blues POV? Sure, they'll make that argument.
From Binnington's POV? Allen's next [current] contract can also be raised as a comparable because he was RFA at the time it kicked in. An additional 49 games [47 regular season, 2 playoffs] doesn't change the fact that he got a contract based on expectations of future performance and not because he was the established #1 guy, and did less in his NHL career and had less of an impact in his team's regular season and playoff success up to that point than Binnington has done so far - and that last part is a killer argument against the Blues.
[underlining is my way of noting what you put in italics]
That's utterly irrelevant. No arbitrator is making a decision on "well, I think you should only be making X on your first 1-way contract." They're making a decision based on "well, this player did Z1 and other comparables did Z2, Z3, Z4, .... and based on the best comparable who's making $Y based on what they did after doing Zx, ... , this player should be making $Y as well."
We have, and will continue to, disagree on who has the stronger hand here. You seem to think the Blues have all kinds of leverage in discussions; I'm firmly of the belief that in front of an arbitrator, Binnington's side could quickly nuke whatever points the Blues want to make. With any luck, we may find out who's right - but I think both sides are going to try and avoid that if at all possible. But I will continue to maintain that looking at Allen's 1st contract as the only measuring stick to go by is short-sighted and any attempt by the Blues to index an offer to that is going to backfire spectacularly.
Last edited:
If we want to look at similar deals to rookie goalie winning the cup, best contract to look at is Matt Murray.
He played 62 regular season games and 32 playoff games.
At that he got a 3 year 11.25 mill dollar deal which comes out to be a 3.75 AAV. He was 23 when he signed this deal.
The big difference is Murry is still an RFA after that deal. What do Blues do with Binnington? 1 year short term deal to prove it or do you sign 4-5 year long term extension?
He played 62 regular season games and 32 playoff games.
At that he got a 3 year 11.25 mill dollar deal which comes out to be a 3.75 AAV. He was 23 when he signed this deal.
The big difference is Murry is still an RFA after that deal. What do Blues do with Binnington? 1 year short term deal to prove it or do you sign 4-5 year long term extension?
Ted Hoffman
The other Rick Zombo
- Dec 15, 2002
- 29,242
- 8,674
I've heard a few summers now that offer sheets would be coming, and they've still yet to happen. But I think too many people think of offer sheets in terms of "why bother, the other team is going to match anyway so why waste the effort" and there's way too little consideration to "this is a weapon we can use to really screw some other team over."
San Jose did that in 2010 when they signed Hjalmarsson to an offer sheet; they knew that Chicago would almost certainly match, but that wasn't the point. It was designed to force Chicago to either exhaust much of the cap space it had or give up a player it really wanted; in the former case, it allowed the Sharks to snatch Niemi with an offer sheet that Chicago couldn't match and with scant compensation; in the latter, the Sharks would have had a young defenseman that they could build a core around. Either way, they were going to get someone they wanted at Chicago's expense.
I've heard offer sheets are expensive to put together (on the order of $25K; no, I don't get how that's different from any other contract or how it's even $25K in the first place) and teams don't want to spend that kind of money for something that isn't going to get the guy being targeted, but if it forces a close opponent to blow a chunk of cap space on a guy and makes them have to jettison other guys to make space and weakens their overall depth, I would think that $25K is pretty cheap to inflict that kind of damage.
For the Blues? They've got decent cap space right now, so I don't know that it does damage short-term. Mid-term or so, there's a potential because of guys who need to get signed but the Blues can still just dump Allen off and open space that way and improve the roster, rendering the entire attempt moot. It's why I'm not worried about someone getting Binnington to sign an offer sheet.
GoldenSeal
Believe In The Note
Chojin
Tiny Panger...
- Apr 6, 2011
- 4,301
- 573
Binnington is arbitration eligible, which prevents him from signing an offer sheet, so I don't think it's much to worry about.
