Speculation: Guess Binnington's next contract
- Thread starter Spektre
- Start date
Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,140
- 13,104
You do realize that the bar needs to be significantly higher than 'not the league's worst goalie' for a 6 year goalie contract to not badly damage an organization, right?
Allen is overpaid. Literally no one disagrees with that statement except for Jake Allen's agent. However, his contract wasn't expensive enough or long enough to cripple the franchise. We're going to get out of it next summer with little cost to us. That's 3 years of total "pain" from that contract and the "pain" in this upcoming season will likely be limited to overpaying a quality backup by a couple mil in a year where you aren't in a cap crunch. For as bad as Allen's contract is, the bulk of the pain is that it was wasted money. He was going to be the starter in 2017/18 no matter what his contract looked like. He posted a .915 SV% through 60 starts in 2016/17 (18th out of 37 goalies with 30+ starts) and then a .935 in the playoffs that year. We would not have been looking for a new starter for 2017/18 regardless of what Allen was making. Then he had a bad 2017/18 and Hutton stole the reigns until he got injured and we were forced to go back to Allen. We couldn't ave asked for a better guy than Hutton, so it's not as if Allen's contract damaged the crease in the 2nd half of the season. Allen's play absolutely did that, but his contract didn't. Allen's contract did prevent us from going out and getting one of the pricier veteran backup options for 2018/19. That worked out (by a massive stroke of good fortune), but this past season is the only year where Allen's contract prohibited us from upgrading the position. His contract will not prevent us from retaining the guy who overtook him on the depth chart and stole the net. So again, Allen is overpaid, but that contract hasn't really set the organization back in any meaningful way because the AAV and the term were both in the "medium" range.
A 6 year contract does prevent you from upgrading the position for several years if the goalie isn't above average. A 6 year contract to a goalie pretty much ensures that even if a better option comes along in years 1-4, you lose that option because you handcuffed yourself to a guy for 6 years. Moving a goalie contract with 4 years left is insanely difficult in the NHL. I could be wrong about this, but I'm about 90% sure that the last goaltender traded with 3+ years left on his contract was Roberto Luongo in 2014. A 6 year deal means that you are locking yourself into whatever Binny truly is for at least 4 of those years with no real ability to upgrade. It means that if Binny turns out to be a slightly below average starter long term and Husso looks like an elite guy in 2-3 years, you are comfortable sticking with Binny and losing Husso. A 6 year contract means you are making that decision this summer, regardless of what happens in 2022. We would be in the position of almost certainly losing Binnington had we given Allen a 6 year deal instead of a 4 year deal. Again, I'm not saying Binny's bottom will be as low as Allen sank, but a 6 year deal demolishes any of the future flexibility Allen's 4 year deal gave the organization to move on from him.
A 6 year contract to an average or slightly below average starter is worse than a 4 year contract to a bad starter, especially at the type of money you believe Binny should get. This league is getting younger and less predictable on a year by year basis. None of us have any clue what the landscape will look like in 3 years (especially since we will be getting a new CBA at some point during the life of a 6 year deal). Tying yourself to the most volatile position for 6 years in an increasingly volatile league has the potential to be a franchise crippling move.
I don't understand this logic of "we hate Allen's contract and it's terrible. We need to give Binny a longer, more expensive contract because he should get more than Allen got." While I like the bulk of Binny's mechanics and don't think he will implode, it is worth noting that tons of goalies have been able to put up an incredible season early in their NHL career and then stumbled hard. Matt Muray got a 3 year deal after winning the Cup as a rookie. We shouldn't be doubling that contract for ours.
Last edited:
Ok, well, prepare yourself.
Why would you think Binnington’s RFA years after playing 1/2 season would cost so much?
You guys gonna loose your shit when Binny gets his new contract. You guys try to compare Binnny to normal RFA situation and goaltender contracts. It was unusual run and nobody hasn't do it in NHL history and Blues franchise so it most likely doesn't comply with Binny like it does with majority.
But we'll see
He can get paid, but why does it have to all be on this next contract? If the term is a bit shorter, it gives him a chance to prove himself as a top goalie consistently.
I’ll always respect what he did. But it doesn’t make him established for more than a few months, and it doesn’t make him UFA. Those details matter in the negotiation.
I’ve guessed 11M over 3y, but starting to think maybe 12M.
Whatever the result is, I won’t “loose my shit”.
ezcreepin
Registered User
- Dec 5, 2016
- 2,567
- 2,312
I can't see Binnington getting anything more than what Lenher got. Sure, Binny won the cup, but his play wasn't other worldy like some others. His numbers in the regular season were good, but it was for 1 season, so he doesn't have a ton of leverage there. Army was banking on Allen signing a contract that would be a super steal midway through, but they signed this before he was even thrust into the starter role. He couldn't handle the pressure and now the contract looks bad. Binny has shown he can play consistently and for multiple consecutive games in a row, so I'm not sure I'm worried about him being at least league average. If I had to make a guess, I think he is a goalie who will be good for 2.7 gaa and a .917 sv %. I think when everything is all said and done, he'll take a short term deal just under or at 4, or take a longer term deal at around Andersen money (5 mil). If he's making anything over 5, then you've got to trade Allen and get a cheaper backup option.
@ezcreepin I think it was LeBrun at athletic who quote Blues keep Allen and goal is set around 9-10mill.$ in Blues goaltenders so +5mill.$ AAV to Binny.
Note Worthy
History Made
Ted Hoffman
The other Rick Zombo
- Dec 15, 2002
- 29,262
- 8,688
You and I are on opposite sides of the fence on this topic and we're not going to agree. However, I'm going to call out two points.
Unfortunately, that contract is a valid comparable should this get to arbitration - and arguing "we overpaid for Allen" isn't acceptable evidence. Plus, your comments about Allen having been overtaken by Hutton and the team having to go back to Allen out of necessity isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of why Binnington should get less. It is fantastic evidence of Binnington's value to the team and its overall success, which will get mentioned in a hearing.
For a 1-year deal in arbitration? Binnington's agent could take the Blues behind the woodshed with that Allen contract. I'm not saying give him 6 years either, but this notion that "we overpaid for Allen when he had done nothing, we shouldn't have to give more money to a guy who bailed out out season and led us to the Cup" makes no sense to me. I suspect it would make no sense to an arbitrator, either. [And, references to cap space aren't admissible as evidence - so all of those points would be dead.]
Unfortunately, that contract is a valid comparable should this get to arbitration - and arguing "we overpaid for Allen" isn't acceptable evidence. Plus, your comments about Allen having been overtaken by Hutton and the team having to go back to Allen out of necessity isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of why Binnington should get less. It is fantastic evidence of Binnington's value to the team and its overall success, which will get mentioned in a hearing.
The argument for relying on Murray's contract depends on valuing him as a rookie winning the Cup in 2016 with little additional context. He was in net to start the playoffs out of necessity, because Fleury had a concussion at the start of the playoffs; the Penguins had also played well throughout the season, so it's not like you can point to Murray going into the lineup and say "yep, that's where the Pens got their shit together." [Plus, Murray didn't have arbitration rights after that season and still had a year left on his ELC; the new contract didn't kick in until '17-18.] The Blues did have a choice, their season turned on a dime after putting Binnington in, and along the way the Blues could have chosen at any point to go back to Allen and intentionally elected to stick with Binnington.
For a 1-year deal in arbitration? Binnington's agent could take the Blues behind the woodshed with that Allen contract. I'm not saying give him 6 years either, but this notion that "we overpaid for Allen when he had done nothing, we shouldn't have to give more money to a guy who bailed out out season and led us to the Cup" makes no sense to me. I suspect it would make no sense to an arbitrator, either. [And, references to cap space aren't admissible as evidence - so all of those points would be dead.]
I'm with Ranksu; I think Binnington is going to end up making more than Allen, whether it's short-term or long-term. I just don't see how the Blues avoid it, unless Binnington just decides to take the Pat Maroon special on the promise of more money coming later - and as the saying goes, promises are made to be broken.
Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,140
- 13,104
If I'm the Blues I'm happy to talk about Allen for a number of reasons. First and foremost, that contract bought 3 UFA years of the 4 it covered. If we're talking about a 1 year arbitration award that leaves the player an RFA upon expiration, that is a gigantic differentiator. Second, any mention of Allen as a comparable means that the Blues are going to talk extensively about the contract Allen signed when he had around 50 NHL starts of experience, which came in at $2.35 AAV (at 3.22% of the cap, that is $2.62 mil AAV). Obviously Binny is getting more than that, but the Blues present that evidence for the arbitrator to meet in the middle of all the imperfect comparables that will be presented (because as you allude to, there are 0 perfect comparables). The argument during arbitration is going to "1 amazing accomplishment" vs "incredibly limited sample size that could be an outlier." Both sides will also be arguing about exactly how much Binny contributed to the overall team success, but that will be within the context of the value of "1 accomplishment vs small sample size." Finally, pointing to Allen's struggles is an incredibly double edged sword for Binny's camp. Because the more you diminish Allen the goalie, the more the Blues can argue that they needed (and got) an adequate goalie to upgrade a terrible starter. The more Binny talks about Allen, the less he is talking about himself and bringing up Allen as a comparable means that a huge chunk of your 90 minutes is now eaten up by refuting the ways Allen's bridge deal AND subsequent performance undermine your argument. Letting the Blues point out that Binny is the 3rd goalie to outperform Allen in the last 4 years and that the other two each posted a SV% better than Binny behind an almost identical D group is not a great way to bolster your claim that Binny is a top 10 NHL goalie. When the other side is arguing that "any adequate positional goalie could thrive in our system," it isn't a great strategy to open the door for them to tell the arbitrator how it has happened with 3 goalies over the last 4 years, not just your client. If the arbitrator takes it a step further and rules that he will allow the Blues to talk about who those goalies are and how they performed when they left the Blues D, then you just lost the hearing.
Distinguish it all you want, it is the absolute best comparable as they are the only two rookies to lead a team to the Cup in the last decade. And yes, Binny absolutely took over in a way that Murray didn't. However, as discussed above, Binny took over in no small part because Allen was playing poorly. Murray was behind Fleury who was in the midst of back-to-back .920+ seasons as a starter. Murray posted a .930 in his 13 regular season starts and was noticeably better during the playoffs than Binny was statistically (.923 vs .914 SV% and a +3.61 vs -1.96 GSAA). Murray was also 4 years younger than Binny when he did it and had the best AHL rookie season of any goalie in AHL history (he won goalie of the year, rookie of the year, set the rookie record for shutouts and had a .941 SV%). The following season, he posted an AHL .931 before joining the Pens late and winning the Cup. That resume absolutely cancels out the fact that Binny played 17 more regular season games and the fact that Binny took the job from a struggling starter. And it is worth noting that Fleury returned from injury during the playoffs and even got a start. And then the Pens chose to go back to Murray instead of their franchise goalie who had posted a .920 in teh regular season.
With what comparable? The Blues will point to Allen's previous bridge deal as just as good of a comparable (if not better) based on NHL experience and AHL pedigree. The Murray contract is easily the best comparable in the league. There are some differences between Binny and Murray, but (worst case scenario for the Blues) the additional 'pros/cons' of each player cancel out those of the other. Even if Binny convinces the arbitrator that the Allen's current deal is the best comparable, the Blues have a very good argument that 75% of the contract purchased UFA years, so a 1 year deal buying only an RFA year shouldn't carry the same AAV. What $5+ mil comparables can Binny offer an arbitrator that remotely fit Binny's resume?
No one is arguing that the Blues will frame their argument as "we overpaid on Allen and don't want to do it again" during arbitration. Getting a good deal is the reason you negotiate with Binny instead of giving him the farm and it is the reason I'd be completely comfortable taking a 1 year arbitration award. The actual comparables and realities of arbitration generally favoring the team are what lead me to believe that we are absolutely better off rolling the dice at arbitration if we can't get a 3 year deal we like. But I understand the sunk cost fallacy and don't see any logic in paying more for a future asset because we overpaid a past one. Numerous people are saying that the Blues should be paying Binny more than Allen. At least one is saying he will be angry if they don't. That's absolute insanity IMO. We should be trying to get the best deal we can with Binny, not trying to get a contract that is just less-bad than Allen's (despite paying him more than Allen).
What is the comparable that gets Binny to $4.5 mil or higher in arbitration? Until I see a couple, my stance is that the Blues should be seeking a 3 year deal similar to the one Murray got, a 1 year deal south of $4 mil AAV or be willing to roll the dice in arbitration. All of those options sound better than 4+ years or an AAV approaching $5 mil or higher.
Last edited:
Vladys Gumption
Colt55
It’s pretty standard fare actually. It doesn’t mean negotiations are going poorly.
Note Worthy
History Made
Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,140
- 13,104
Case in point, we just reached a 2 year deal with Sanford, one of the 3 other guys who filed for arbitration along with Binny.
jimmythemick
Registered User
They were discussing Binny's contract on this morning on Stellick & Simmer this morning. Obviously its pure speculation, but they were pretty convinced it would be a 3-4 year/5 mill AAV contract. The discussion went as far to say arbitration was going to be difficult because of this situation has never happened before. Should be interesting one way or another, but I think Army tries to avoid arbitration.
If you guys can lock him in at $5 million for more than a couple years, you should jump at it. That's completely average goalie money, and unless Binnington falls apart completely, it's a good deal to lock up.
$5 million only gets you a used Jimmy Howard. Who is painfully average.
Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,140
- 13,104
F Andersen, Varlamov, Rinne and Lehner are the four goalies making $5 mil next year. Not a bad group (well, excluding Varly).
Bishop makes $4.9, Vasilevski makes $3.5, and Lehner made $1.5 last year before getting his 1 year, $5 mil deal this summer. So all 3 of last year's Vezina nominees did it on a contract below $5 mil and none of them will make $5 mil in the upcoming season. Two of those 3 guys signed $5 mil or less deals as UFAs, including Lehner who signed with a new team on a 1 year, $5 mil deal.
You're lacking a lot of context here. Like so much.
Age, when the contract was signed, if one of them had chronic alcoholism and took a 1 year prove it deal... But sure, you can try to bargain hunt for a top goalie. Good luck.
Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,140
- 13,104
Cant wait this Brian39 I mean Binny nonesense saga end.
Guy wins för us Stanley Cup and he's trying every possible way to lowballing our 2ND best or best player with contract.
Brian39's posts remind me this GIF.
I would like our window to remain open for the duration of Tarasenko and ROR's contracts.
A bridge and then massive contract to Binny if he can do it for another year allows that to happen.
A 4+ year deal at $5+ mil to him if he turns out to be a below average starter probably closes that window.
Anyone here who honestly believes that they can predict the next 4 years of a goalie with 55 NHL games of experience is a fool. They are either drastically overconfident in their ability to analyze/predict goalies or they are a fool for not turning their incredible gift into a seven figure front office gig with an NHL team. Goalies are easily the most unpredictable position in hockey and probably in all of sports. That's not a knock on Binny. That's the reality of the position.
Do you think the Hawks win all 3 of their Cups if they had matched the 4 year offer sheet given to Niemi? FWIW, they had pretty similar playoff performances on the road to the Cup. I think Binny is a better goalie than Niemi because he plays a simpler style. But none of us know that for sure in the sample size we have seen.
Last edited:
Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,140
- 13,104
Bishop's was a 6 year deal signed as a UFA about a year after he had back-to-back deep playoff runs with Tampa. He had been nominated for the Vezina 2 of the preceding 4 years and had a career playoff SV% of .927 through 36 starts. The cap hit percentage at the time of signing is equivalent to a $5.49 mil AAV with today's cap. What about that context screams that the expectation at $5 mil should be average goaltending?
Lehner has posted a .920 or better in 3 of the last 4 years and was on a 1 year prove it deal this year.
If you get a top goalie at $5 mil, that's great. But that isn't what you were saying. You were saying $5 mil is a good deal for just an average goalie and then referenced Jimmy Howard. My point is that $5 mil looks like a bad contract if you don't get a top goalie and the guys making $5 mil support that. I'd be happy with 3 of the 4 guys making $5 mil. I'd be livid if I were an Islanders fan stuck with Varly at $5 mil, even though he is capable of being a 15-20 goalie in the NHL.
Last edited:
