Speculation: Guess Binnington's next contract

[Brockon]

I'd say there is about a 90% chance, unless you are using a "doesn't matter; won a Cup" measurement of regret.

How many 6 year, $5+ mil AAV goalie contracts are there that teams haven't eventually regretted?

The NHL is absolutely littered with bad goalie contracts. It is the most inconsistent position in hockey by a mile. Go back and look at the league's goaltenders from 6 years ago. Of the 24 guys who started 45+ games there are 9 who I'd have been comfortable using as a starter as a contender this year. 8 if you want to exclude Crawford due to injury. 6 years, $6 mil AAV is an insane contract to give any goaltender who isn't demonstrably elite. I don't think Binny is a flash in the pan, but we absolutely can't say he is going to be an elite goalie based on 50 games.

Binny's mental fortitude is fantastic, but there are mechanical issues that began getting exploited as teams watched film on him. His tendency to lift his left leg to cover for carrying his glove so high burned him at least 4 times in the last 2 rounds of the playoffs and it was clear that Boston was actively trying to get him to pull his leg off the ice before they shot and then slide it 5 hole. It worked a number of times. That needs to get cleaned up with a full offseason. I think it will, but there isn't a chance in hell I want to offer him 6 years and $36 mil until I see it cleaned up.

You forgot to mention that his tendency to overlap the near post makes him excruciatingly slow to cover the wrap around... Benn came very close to knocking us out on one such play.

I distinctly recall 2 such highlights from game 7 alone where Dallas failed to convert on the wrap around - 1 post and a highlight reel play.

Binny isn't an amazing starter, he's above average - which is something we haven't had in my limited 6 year fandom. That's not worth 6x6...

Give him 1 year at 4m, increase the sample size. Watch his numbers come down and sign him to 4.5m x 5 next summer after feeding him 50-60 starts to establish a realistic workload and see how he handles the full season after his 46 pro starts (giving the benefit of the doubt that all AHL appearances were starts) this season.

I thought Binny looked vulnerable in the last 2 rounds, where the D often covered up his misreads or small overcommitments - 71 starts is a lot of pro hockey, sure. But how does he rebound when he's not playing for his NHL career and then his dream of winning a cup? How does he play in game 48 of the season, when he knows the team isn't going to send him back to the minors if he doesn't execute?

I believe in his mental fortitude, he's going to rebound from loses to similar effect. But, I'm truly curious to see how he plays when the team is in the midst of a 4 game winning streak in mid season, when our season isn't on life support - like it was in January.

 

[Thallis]

IF I would be Binny I would even talk about anything if contract would starts lower than Allen's AAV 4.350 mill.$ contract.

Armstrong would tell him, "UFA years were bought with that money, we can bridge you to there if you want."

 

[Brian39]

Hypothetically...

Let's say he gets 3 x 4.5 and plays well. Puts up roughly a 920 save percentage and has a couple solid playoff runs, maybe even another deep one.

He's now a pending UFA and asking for 8-9 mil (quite possible with the cap going up). Are we comfortable with that?

I would much rather do that contract (or let him walk depending on what Husso/prospect looks like) in 3 years with an increased cap than deal with 6 years of $6 mil if Binny winds up not being a top 10 starter.

Paying market value for proven talent is significantly less harmful than getting stuck with an anchor contract. You're kidding yourself if you believe you can predict a goaltender 4+ years into the future based on a 50 NHL game sample size. It's insanely difficult to predict a goalie 4+ years out regardless of sample size or reputation.

 

[Em etah Eh]

We have Tank and ROR locked in for 4 more years, Parayko for 3, and hopefully Petro for the rest of his career. I’d rather have the 3 year deal for Binny than the 6X6 for sure. IMO our window is 3-4 years before you really have to make some significant decisions.

My first choice would be to get Binny for 1 year to prove it. You can then move Allen more reasonably or buy him out, for Binny’s real extension after he does prove it.

Other than that, I like the 3 year deal because it buys out 1 UFA year and shouldn’t be that expensive. I’d probably rather have him on a 2 year deal right to UFA, than that 6X6 to be honest.

 

[LGB51]

We have Tank and ROR locked in for 4 more years, Parayko for 3, and hopefully Petro for the rest of his career. I’d rather have the 3 year deal for Binny than the 6X6 for sure. IMO our window is 3-4 years before you really have to make some significant decisions.

My first choice would be to get Binny for 1 year to prove it. You can then move Allen more reasonably or buy him out, for Binny’s real extension after he does prove it.

Other than that, I like the 3 year deal because it buys out 1 UFA year and shouldn’t be that expensive. I’d probably rather have him on a 2 year deal right to UFA, than that 6X6 to be honest.

I guess I'm too much of a fan, I say give him as much as he wants for as long as he wants. We basically had our own Johnny Quick take this team to the promised land and I can honestly see him doing that again this year or next.

 

[simon IC]

I would offer a one year "prove it" contract. I don't want to be saddled with an anchor contract if Binnington is a flash in the pan. I don't think he will be, but you never know. If he continues playing well next season, then sign him long term.

 

[Pizza!Pizza!]

Since Armstrong signed Allen to his current contract, I would expect him to sign Binnington to some sort of Carey Price-esque deal of around 8 x 12m$ + annual bonuses.

 

[STL BLUES]

Would somebody please tell me the name of the NHL team that would want to take Jake Allen? Even at a discount? He’s not going anywhere.

 

[Alklha]

Would somebody please tell me the name of the NHL team that would want to take Jake Allen? Even at a discount? He’s not going anywhere.

I wouldn't speak in absolutes regarding the lack of interest.

Allen is unquestionably overpaid, but the UFA market for backups isn't cheap anymore. Last summer it cost us $1.75m for a guy coming off a .891 sv% season. Hutton, a 32 year old career backup, got 3 years at $2.75m. All the decent backups last year, who didn't have some sort of off ice issues going on, got $2.5m+ on multi-year deals. The cap is going up again this summer, and there are fewer quality backups hitting the market.

There are GMs out there who could prefer an overpaid goalie, with some upside, for two years rather than going into UFA to overpay and give more term to someone. Maybe Philly, Columbus or Carolina. It's just that we wouldn't get anything of value, and then we'd be lieft in the position of looking for a quality backup in a bad market.

 

[Novacain]

Also, Carolina is apparently letting both there goalies walk. Him as a fit there could make something resembling sense.

 

[Thallis]

I would offer a one year "prove it" contract. I don't want to be saddled with an anchor contract if Binnington is a flash in the pan. I don't think he will be, but you never know. If he continues playing well next season, then sign him long term.

Yup. Don't trust him long term yet. I'll gladly pay him his money long term if he can prove it long term. He's a great story, but smart management says bridge him and see where he and Husso are when the contract runs out.

 

[WeWentBlues]

Would somebody please tell me the name of the NHL team that would want to take Jake Allen? Even at a discount? He’s not going anywhere.

I wouldn't speak in absolutes regarding the lack of interest.

Allen is unquestionably overpaid, but the UFA market for backups isn't cheap anymore. Last summer it cost us $1.75m for a guy coming off a .891 sv% season. Hutton, a 32 year old career backup, got 3 years at $2.75m. All the decent backups last year, who didn't have some sort of off ice issues going on, got $2.5m+ on multi-year deals. The cap is going up again this summer, and there are fewer quality backups hitting the market.

There are GMs out there who could prefer an overpaid goalie, with some upside, for two years rather than going into UFA to overpay and give more term to someone. Maybe Philly, Columbus or Carolina. It's just that we wouldn't get anything of value, and then we'd be lieft in the position of looking for a quality backup in a bad market.

Add Calgary, Colorado, Edmonton, Montreal, New York Islanders, Toronto to the list of teams that could be interested in Allen as they all are looking for a backup goaltender. Allen at 4.35M is too much to be paying for a backup. If you put salary retention on the table, the list of suitors increases considerably.

Calgary - Rittich; Smith is a UFA
Colorado - Grubauer; Varlamov is a UFA
Edmonton - Nothing behind Koskinen
Montreal - Nothing behind Price
Islanders - Lehner UFA, Greiss has one year left
Toronto - Looking to upgrade from Sparks

 

[Brian39]

You forgot to mention that his tendency to overlap the near post makes him excruciatingly slow to cover the wrap around... Benn came very close to knocking us out on one such play.

I distinctly recall 2 such highlights from game 7 alone where Dallas failed to convert on the wrap around - 1 post and a highlight reel play.

Binny isn't an amazing starter, he's above average - which is something we haven't had in my limited 6 year fandom. That's not worth 6x6...

Give him 1 year at 4m, increase the sample size. Watch his numbers come down and sign him to 4.5m x 5 next summer after feeding him 50-60 starts to establish a realistic workload and see how he handles the full season after his 46 pro starts (giving the benefit of the doubt that all AHL appearances were starts) this season.

I thought Binny looked vulnerable in the last 2 rounds, where the D often covered up his misreads or small overcommitments - 71 starts is a lot of pro hockey, sure. But how does he rebound when he's not playing for his NHL career and then his dream of winning a cup? How does he play in game 48 of the season, when he knows the team isn't going to send him back to the minors if he doesn't execute?

I believe in his mental fortitude, he's going to rebound from loses to similar effect. But, I'm truly curious to see how he plays when the team is in the midst of a 4 game winning streak in mid season, when our season isn't on life support - like it was in January.

I'm not concerned about his wraparound issues. I agree with your analysis, but I don't view it as a huge issue for 2 reasons.

First, even though it is a weakness that may allow more goals than average against that specific play, it is unlikely to lead to a huge number of goals against. Wraparounds are fairly difficult to execute and our D is very good at collapsing down to the goal line to prevent/disrupt attempts. So long as we have Petro/Parayko and a couple other lengthy defenders with good sticks (Army's favorite), we should continue defending those plays well. Additionally, even though he is often late getting there, he generally gets enough pad over to prevent an open net tuck and instead force a guy to hit the right spot (Benn in game 7 is an example where his weakness here created an opportunity for Benn but he still got enough there to disrupt an easy tuck goal). Second, his post overlapping also serves a positive purpose. While it creates opening for a wrap or cross ice opportunity, it also is preventing short side goals. Binny allows fewer short side goals than most goalies and does so without being off his angle and giving up more far side goals on direct shots. Long story short, his positioning as the puck moves high to low is preventing goals on direct shot chances. In combination, this means that even if his overlapping continues, it likely isn't a mechanical issue that can open the flood gates as teams build a film bank on him. It will probably lead to a small uptick in wraparound goals, but most of that uptick will be outweighed by the goals his positioning prevents. Even if it is a net negative overall, I don't expect it to be a substantial negative.

 

[Brian39]

I guess I'm too much of a fan, I say give him as much as he wants for as long as he wants. We basically had our own Johnny Quick take this team to the promised land and I can honestly see him doing that again this year or next.

Quick posted a .946 on their first Cup run and was a +13.31 GSAA (goals saved above average). Binny just posted a .914 on ours with a -.1.96 GSAA.

Binny provided good, steady goaltending on our Cup run with an ability to play his best games deeper in a series. That is very, very different from Quick being borderline unbeatable for the Kings on their first run. I don't think Binny's numbers quite reflect how well he played, but you can't ignore the gaping hole statistically between what Binny did and what Quick did.

 

[Brian39]

I wouldn't speak in absolutes regarding the lack of interest.

Allen is unquestionably overpaid, but the UFA market for backups isn't cheap anymore. Last summer it cost us $1.75m for a guy coming off a .891 sv% season. Hutton, a 32 year old career backup, got 3 years at $2.75m. All the decent backups last year, who didn't have some sort of off ice issues going on, got $2.5m+ on multi-year deals. The cap is going up again this summer, and there are fewer quality backups hitting the market.

There are GMs out there who could prefer an overpaid goalie, with some upside, for two years rather than going into UFA to overpay and give more term to someone. Maybe Philly, Columbus or Carolina. It's just that we wouldn't get anything of value, and then we'd be lieft in the position of looking for a quality backup in a bad market.

This is why I'm not in much rush to move Allen. We need a backup who can comfortably handle 30-35 starts next year. It would be great if we don't need to give our backup that, but we shouldn't be putting all of our eggs into Binny being able to play like an above average goalie with a top 5 workload. We should be giving Binny every opportunity to have another great year with a 50-55 start load and increase that load if he is cruising along after the first 2-3 months.

For all of his faults and inability to handle a 60 start workload, Allen has demonstrated that he can excel in a tandem or 'busy backup' role. This year, Allen posted a .922 from Binny's first start onward and he posted a .920 through 44 starts in 2015/16 (which made management believe he was ready to be a full blown starter). I'm comfortable that Allen can provide good enough goaltending to put Binny in position to excel in a reasonable workload. Buying that comfort on the UFA market is going to cost $2.5 mil or more and will require a 2 or 3 year commitment.

If you can get an asset for Allen, great. Do that and then spend 50-66% of the cap savings on a good veteran and save yourself $1.5-2 mil in cap space. But if you can't (or have to spend an asset to move Allen), keep him and let him play well as a backup. He'll probably raise his trade value by his play but even if he doesn't, moving 1 year of him next summer will be easier than moving 2 years of him now.

 

[LGB51]

Quick posted a .946 on their first Cup run and was a +13.31 GSAA (goals saved above average). Binny just posted a .914 on ours with a -.1.96 GSAA.

Binny provided good, steady goaltending on our Cup run with an ability to play his best games deeper in a series. That is very, very different from Quick being borderline unbeatable for the Kings on their first run. I don't think Binny's numbers quite reflect how well he played, but you can't ignore the gaping hole statistically between what Binny did and what Quick did.

The numbers don't mean much to me as he had a few bad games for one reason or another while never really having many shots on goal per game to up the averages. What does matter to me is how clutch he was when it mattered, like Quick who had a few bad games himself on those cup runs. I realize I'm not doing this right, I'm don't think about this from a front office perspective. Which is why I don't usually chime in in these types of discussions unless it's to ask a question usually. But in this case and in my opinion this is our guy and he's earned a player friendly deal.

No I don't run my own business lol.

 

[Brian39]

The numbers don't mean much to me as he had a few bad games for one reason or another while never really having many shots on goal per game to up the averages. What does matter to me is how clutch he was when it mattered, like Quick who had a few bad games himself on those cup runs. I realize I'm not doing this right, I'm don't think about this from a front office perspective. Which is why I don't usually chime in in these types of discussions unless it's to ask a question usually. But in this case and in my opinion this is our guy and he's earned a player friendly deal.

No I don't run my own business lol.

I agree on the clutchness and agree that his numbers look worse than my eye test.

But my point is that even giving him complete benefit of the doubt, what he did was not what Quick did right before getting his big contract and we shouldn't be looking at that contract as a guide to what we give Binny.

To your point about bad games bringing Binny's numbers down, that is true. However, the big difference between he and Quick is not that Quick had more high volume games to bring his numbers up. The difference is that Quick didn't have those bad games. Quick posted a sub-.900 SV% just once during that 2012 run and it was an .895. Binny had 7 of those games. 3 of them saw his SV% below .800 and there were another 3 starts between .800 and Quick's playoff low of .895. Quick averaged 26.9 shots against per game while Binny averaged 26, so we're not talking about Quick facing tons of low percentage shots to help him pad his stats. FWIW, GSAA attempts to control for the quality of shots faced. It is by no means a perfect stat, but the difference between -1.6 and +13.3 demonstrates a difference in performance that just can't be ignored.

Again, I felt Binny played well during the playoffs and his ability to elevate his game later in a series is an asset that I don't think was just coincidence. But he was not 2012 Quick on this Cup run.

 

[Ranksu]

Armstrong would tell him, "UFA years were bought with that money, we can bridge you to there if you want."

-"Hey Army I would like to ask a trade in Toronto to my home."

 

[Stlblue50]

Would somebody please tell me the name of the NHL team that would want to take Jake Allen? Even at a discount? He’s not going anywhere.

I do think the fact that he appears to be well liked as a person (not goalie) with the team, should help his trade value. You would be surprised how hard it is to find a goalie that is pretty normal off the ice and one that just experienced a cup run.

 

[Stlblue50]

I would do everything you can to not piss Binny off with some prove it one more year contract. I wouldn’t overpay but let’s just say that he deserves a really good contract

 

[Brian39]

I would do everything you can to not piss Binny off with some prove it one more year contract. I wouldn’t overpay but let’s just say that he deserves a really good contract

Just to play devil's advocate, he seems to thrive with a chip on his shoulder.

 

[Instl]

It might not be the popular opinion but I'm not sure Binnington is the Blues future savior. He's great positionally, excellent stick handler, and doesn't overslide very often. That being said, his rebound control bothers me a lot. As long as the defense plays as well as they did and clears the rebounds or he works a lot on it in the offseason, he'll be fine but I don't see him as the spectacular goalie many do.

I'd hate to tie him up long term for big money and be stuck with $9-10 mil in goalie money without a sure number 1.

JMO.

 

[Thallis]

-"Hey Army I would like to ask a trade in Toronto to my home."

View attachment 237889

"Have fun in Edmonton."

Binnington doesn't have that kind of leverage. He doesn't have an ntc, he can't sign with anyone else, all he can do is hold out or request a trade.

 

[Brockon]

"Have fun in Edmonton."

Binnington doesn't have that kind of leverage. He doesn't have an ntc, he can't sign with anyone else, all he can do is hold out or request a trade.

Binny's also got to know that the threat of having to start Allen if he holds out, is significantly in his favor.

Binnington may not have much leverage as an RFA per his negotiation rights. But he has a great bargaining position relative to the Blues when it comes to negotiating - I won you a cup and you can't trust Allen as a starter...

I almost wonder if he's better off not electing for arbitration, to remain open to offer sheets from other clubs. Granted, arbitration through unpleasant, lights a fire under the team to try and avoid arbitration putting a hard deadline on negotiations.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

It might not be the popular opinion but I'm not sure Binnington is the Blues future savior. He's great positionally, excellent stick handler, and doesn't overslide very often. That being said, his rebound control bothers me a lot. As long as the defense plays as well as they did and clears the rebounds or he works a lot on it in the offseason, he'll be fine but I don't see him as the spectacular goalie many do.

I'd hate to tie him up long term for big money and be stuck with $9-10 mil in goalie money without a sure number 1.

JMO.

He was our goalie that won 16 games so that we could all spend the season going broke while telling everyone within earshot that we're the Stanley Cup champions for the first time in franchise history. That wasn't happening with Allen in net, and it didn't happen with any other highly touted goalie that ever came through the organization.

No, he may not ever do that again. What it's worth going forward is what we're all debating. But for 2019, I'd call him the savior of the franchise.